Responding on Bomb Magazine, Reichardt states that, “There’s a certain kind of help that society will give and a certain help it won’t give.” This was of particular interest to watching Wendy and Lucy (2008) for two reasons. First, this aspect of “certain kinds of help” was present in the two Italian Neorealist films screened today. Secondly, the presence of Reichardt’s influence from real life inspiration, inform the way the film plays out with the questions of help and the results of lacking that help.
In The Bicycle Thief (1948) the protagonist is on his own when chasing the thief. In contrast, as someone pointed out in class, it is “hyperbolical” to the massive number of people that prevent him from stealing the bike. This is significant when observed that the second man, along with the ones who help him are better dressed with handkerchiefs, ties, and suits that contrast to his wrinkled attire and worn, multipurpose shirt. In the other piece, the man is asking the nanny to take the dog, to which she rejects him by ironically saying, “What a bargain!” A reply to which his hurt spills out with the words, “But I am giving him up in exchange for nothing. A dog like him, for nothing!”
Within Reichardt’s experience, her realization comes at observing that, “I’m driving a Subaru. I’m white, and [the police officer] basically told me I should go on my way. He was doing nothing to assist her, and it was like, 110 degrees and her car was in a ditch on the side of Highway Ten. This woman was not going to get community help” (Bomb Magazine). Her experience and the way it formed her subsequent questions about class, appearance, and social status, and how they relate to the types of help one can ask for, make Wendy a more believable character.
Desensitized to the predominance of poverty and homelessness, Wendy’s status, as a young, white woman don’t help her anymore. She is punished for her poverty. For example, she doesn’t get the same assistance she could from the pound because of her lack of stability. The mechanic proves unsympathetic and disregarding of her directions—most pointedly when he describes checking the gas, to which she alarmingly stares back at him, through a recurrent close-up of her face, and states she didn’t ask for that. The help she receives comes from someone who is not in a position to bring her economic relief. More than anything, the security guard offers a disruption to the cycle of unfortunate circumstances.
Help, like time, and money has become a commodity reserved to those who can give something in return. Poverty is the new social threat, and it is to be regarded as such, and marginalized. In Reichardt’s own words, “It’s just the disdain for poverty” (“A Completely False Security”). The film’s direct address to these issue, a circular, self-fulfilling economic decay is seen when Wendy and the security guard talk about not being able to get an address without an address, a job without a job, or a job without an address. Once inside the cycle, getting out is an endless process, and one without help.
Reichardt’s camera creates the endless feeling of inescapability through its long-takes, and constant shots of Wendy’s distressed face. They are redundant and constant. Most significantly and representative is the sequence of her running away from her night assailant, Wendy runs from the right to the left side of the frame. Quick cuts offer a different background through which she is running, but there is no starting or ending destination. She is not looking for help because there is none. It is a blind escape into darkness. It is just a constant, mashed together sequence of moving, but returning to the right side of the frame and starting over—the endless, helpless cycle.
Another quick point I would like to point out, since nobody yet has mentioned it is the humming that occurs, and that seems the only "music" in the film. This aspect of the film was particularly intriguing since it brought to mind the whisper of "Ali" from Petzold's Jerichow (2008). When the movie begins there is a woman's humming resonating in the screen. When Lucy walks into the frame from the left side, and is followed by Wendy, it seems as if she is the one humming. However, she begins talking to Lucy and asking for the stick. Through this, it becomes obvious that she is not the one humming since her voice sounds distant--a complete opposite from the loud and clear humming.
This occurs again when she gets off the taxi and starts walking to meet Lucy. Again, the humming is introduced, and through Wendy talking to the taxi driver, it is established as an extra-diegetic sound. Finally, the last time this phenomenon occurs is when there is a side, tracking shot from the train cart into the forest and trees that Wendy is leaving.
This is the first time that she is not shown, up-close, or at a distance to disassociate the humming as hers. However, through the camera set-up, the shot could be a point-of-view shot. If this is so, the possibility that the humming finally aligns with the right situational and spacial setting for the humming to be diegetic is likely. Consequently, if this is Wendy humming as the train departs, how does this affect her departure? Does it make a difference? What does it mean that the film starts with the end (sound wise)?
I wondered whether the humming possibly being diegetic in the last shot reflected on Wendy's outlook on the future and her present state of being. I wondered whether it took the place of the missing closing shot of her.
I wondered about the humming as well. It seems as though the humming is representative of Lucy being gone. The first time we here the humming in the opening sequence and then it stops as soon as Wendy has lost Lucy and begins to search. The next time we hear it, it’s in the grocery store and that is ultimately where she loses Lucy. The final time is the ending scene where she has left Lucy behind, but says she will come back some day.
Having the humming being the only extra diegetic sound really put emphasis on the few times we heard it. Whether it was foreshadowing or subtle hints, it really forces the audience to be weary every time we heard that hum.
In Gus Van Sant’s interview with Kelly Reichardt in BOMB Magazine, Reichardt says, “there’s the theme of certain people not being of any use to society—maybe they’re too old or poor so they’re a blight—they’re like stray dogs” (Reichardt). I find it very interesting that she makes this statement because we have both a dog and a human character in Wendy and Lucy, and they appear to have switched roles. That is, it seems like Lucy is the grounded one - the owner, per se - and Wendy is the stray dog. Wendy is quite literally too poor, and so she doesn’t offer much to society, while Lucy, even though she may not have much, is doing pretty well for herself, especially at the end of the film, when we find she has been rescued by a better owner. The story revolves around Wendy being a “stray dog.” At first, she doesn’t seem totally stray, just lost, trying to find her way “back home” (that is, she is trying to get to Alaska so she can get a job and hopefully make enough of a living to survive). However, as the plot unfolds, she is met with many challenges - her car breaks down, she has to pay a fine for shoplifting, and she loses her beloved dog. These challenges eventually become too great for Wendy to overcome, and she realizes that, in fact, that since she doesn’t have enough money for dog food she shouldn’t have a dog at all (paraphrased from Wendy and Lucy). Reichardt also said in BOMB, “Oddly, some people see the film’s ending as having hope. I didn’t see that much hope” (Reichardt). My interpretation of the ending, too, is that Wendy doesn’t have much hope. Wendy has realized that she cannot have love without money, and it doesn’t seem like she has a means for getting more money.
After watching the Italian neorealism movie clips in class, then the movie Wendy and Lucy, it's clearly evident that's partly where Kelly Reichardt got her influences from. They were all so similar.
In the first example movie of neorealism, the bicycle thief, there were two parts that were used in Wendy and Lucy. First, the long tracking shot in the pound in Wendy and Lucy is very similar to the scene of the black market of all the bicycles and the bicycle parts. The other shared technique was when Wendy left Lucy outside the grocery store to steal some dog food. In the Bicycle thief, the main character tried to send his some away while he stole the bike. He was stealing the bike for the child in a sense because if the father has the bike, then he also has a job that puts food on the table for his son. Wendy did the same thing to Lucy, and both Lucy and the child in the bicycle thief witnessed the wrongful action. Or both of them getting caught.
In Umberto D, it's a little more difficult to find the similarities, but they are there. Both characters had little to no money really. Despite that, they did anything they could for their dog. In Umberto D, the main character gave the dog his food at the food bank place. Wendy tried to steal food from a grocery store for her dog. Both tried to give the dog a better home, and Wendy really did, but the old man didn't. The similarity is that they both tried.
Other common techniques used by Reichardt were the long shot and being filmed on location. These styles help give off the sense of realism, and the audience is actually joining this character on their story for however long the film lasts.
I liked how you connected Wendy and Lucy to the Italian neo-realism films that we've watched in class.
The term "example" was also tossed the same way in both Wendy and Lucy and Bicycle Thief when they got caught. Both Wendy and the father were expected to lead a good example. To me, it was pretty unusual for the employee to say that she was a bad example to her dog though. As said in the movie and in class, the humiliation of the father being caught was punishment enough for his crime. So, I think that Lucy being missing was indirectly Wendy's punishment hence creates another similarity between the two films in terms of its message that there are consequences for bad doings.
Another similarity between Umberto B and Wendy and Lucy that I would like to add was the camera angle at the end of both movies. At the end where Wendy found Lucy at the foster home, the point of view shifted to Lucy's. The scenes were taken at lower angles looking up. This was similar to Umberto D. Another important aspect that I've noticed in both movies were the roles the dogs played. They were both lifesavers of their owners. We see it in a more literal way in Umberto D but for Wendy and Lucy, Lucy gave Wendy a purpose and responsibility. Lucy prevented Wendy from being a "ghost".
It was pretty nice that we visited Italian Neorealist films in class, which is my favorite genre of film to critically analyze. However, there was one element in Wendy and Lucy that seemed even more neorealist than the others, particularily contrasting it with the Umberto D clip we watched.
Both films are centered around dogs as companions. It's a classic combination, one that dates back to the silent era. Dogs are man's best friend, after all. However, the depiction of the dog in the Umberto D. film and Lucy are radically different, and I believe that is because of the "authenticity" of Lucy's performance. It's bizarre to talk about a dog's acting, but hear me out. Italian Neorealism is defined by it's attempt to capture realism by using real sets, real lighting, and "real" people (non-actors). However, it's clear that the dog in Umberto D. is trained to do tricks for the film, such as the begging and the hopping in the final scene we witness. This is clearly a trick the dog was trained to do, and seems bizarre to fit in a neorealist film (from my perspective, I had not seen the whole film). However, it's clear that Lucy is a dog who isn't trained to do tricks, therefore Lucy's "performance" isn't a performance at all, she's acting the way she would around others which gives the bond between the two a greater authenticity. There are even a few moments where Lucy unintentionally breaks the fourth wall by looking into the camera, which isn't an issue because it feels natural for her to do so. Throughout the film, the audience establishes a connection with Lucy like we would with any other dog, because she feels like a real dog. I don't think I can say that about the dog in Umberto D, but I may just be assuming.
Along with that, I see that the use of a dog was able to connect the audience with neorealism more. For a lot of people keeping care of a dog is just another mundane task in their day. That paired with the struggling life of Wendy strongly suggested to me that it was one of the few normal tasks left in her life. Brushing her teeth in the dirty restroom and changing her clothes while keeping her bare feet on top her shoes brought her away from the normal repetition of the acts, while Wendy was much more comfortable walking Lucy around.
Of course when Wendy loses Lucy is when her life really starts to crumble. She loses her lifeline and now has to face her ever-dwindling sum of money, and car problems by herself. I think the review of the film said it best, “ it prods us to recognize just how isolated Wendy has become—or has purposely left herself—from other human beings.” Like the man from Umberto D, Wendy has connected with her dog on a deeper level than any people she meets. While many people consider their dog their “best friend” the statement rings true for the two characters.
Like in The Bicycle Thief, Wendy’s life is pushed on pause until she finds her dog, (in the other film is was the bicycle of course) and it only pushes her into debt even more while she is waiting. This reliance on her dog almost gives Wendy a childish feeling that is common among Italian neorealism films. She acts immaturely when she is caught stealing the food by not telling the truth, and again when she is searching for Lucy outside of the supermarket. Again, this lends her desperate plight towards the feeling of neorealism.
I noticed that the start of Wendy and Lucy was somewhat similar to Old Joy. They both start with things that were contradicting with one another for example in Old Joy, Mark was meditating in silence outside then it shifts to a scene with loud noises in the house whereas in Wendy and Lucy, we start off at the train tracks and then we are in the forest. It showcases two totally different worlds. Another similarity between Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy that I found interesting was when the characters reached their climax, they close their eyes as a sign of relief or letting go. When Wendy received good news that Lucy was found, she closes her eyes in relief.
Moving on, I love how Reichardt plots her stories around daily life problems such as poverty or losing someone or something. This makes is more real and believable. It relates more with the audience which explains why we do not need that much narrative about the characters to fully understand the film. She not only plots around daily life problems, but she also captures the beauty of things. “They are authentic train-hopping gutter punks. That was one of the hardest nights of shooting. They were demanding drugs and alcohol, and some of them were really young and pissed that we weren’t getting them drunk. A lot is gained by them being authentic, I loved shooting them through the firelight; I mean, their faces are amazing” (Focus 95).
From the interview and earlier readings, we know that she loves emphasizing on the surrounding environments to showcase the beauty of the forest and also how much it has changed in time. However, she also loves emphasizing on the beauty and true colours of humanity through her camera skills and plot. Although there is this negative stereotypes against gutter punks, Reichardt manages to capture a side of them that society does not see. Despite being gutter punks, they were friendly and nice towards Wendy and Lucy. They did not bring harm in anyway.
According to BOMB Magazine, Reichardt said “In those films there’s the theme of certain people not being of any use to society—maybe they’re too old or poor so they’re a blight—they’re like stray dogs”. It is true that Wendy is just drifting from place to place in society with no purpose or future. She doesn’t have a home or a phone. However, by having Lucy, it gave her a sense of responsibility and purpose, without her, she will merely be a “ghost” living in the midst of society
In many ways, I think Wendy and Lucy illustrate the thesis of this class, "One cannot love without money," more than any other film. Although the plot we see in the film is Wendy's search for Lucy, the real threat that hangs over the film is the possibility of destitution and homelessness, of being poor. Much like the main character in the Bicycle Thief, we see Wendy, throughout the course of the film, lose everything of any value. Through her story, we see a certain kind of logic of capitalism. The security guard says it best when he says something along the lines of "You need a job to get a job. You need an address to get an address." This film explores the bottom of capitalism, where many American's are currently at. And it's a place that pretty much any middle-class person can find themselves suddenly living it, through no fault of their own. It's not that Wendy doesn't have a family, it's that that family, her brother who she calls from a pay phone, is also at the end of his financial ropes and so is unable to help, and to love. Although this movie is pretty bleak, there are also a few remarkable instances of kindness, from the security guard, from the mechanic, from the pet foster parent, but the thing is is that all of these "kindnesses" are economic ones. The security card lets her use his phone, saving Wendy a quarter. Later he gives her 6 or 7 dollars. The mechanic gives her a discount. And finally, the reason why Wendy ends up leaving Lucy at the foster home was due to her economic circumstances. Now although all of this kindnesses can be quantified monetarily, that doesn't mean they are not profound acts of altruism. As we see Wendy lose hundreds of dollars throughout the movie, the small gains she is able to make feel like acts of love. When one is system in which one needs money to function, money can very well be kindness. Much like how her brother couldn't take of Wendy, Wendy must sadly leave Lucy to fend for herself because she doesn't have enough money to support her.
I think that you are right that "Wendy and Lucy" pertains to the theme of the class perhaps more so than the films we have viewed up to this point. To me, the connection between capitalism and love is especially clear in this film because the love in the film is between a woman and her dog. This removes the sexually-based love present in many of Petzold and Assayas' films and replaces it with a "purer" love based on altruism and loyalty.
Wendy's sacrificial love for Lucy is present throughout the film, but is especially prevalent when she is arrested for stealing. Indeed, the very reason she loses Lucy at the grocery store is because she is caught stealing dog food for Lucy. Wendy could have stolen food for herself (she may have stolen the cookies for herself, but it is impossible to tell since they are never seen again after she puts them in her coat pocket) or at least stolen food that both her and Lucy could eat, but instead she steals two cans of dog food. As E. Dawn Hall says in "Kelly Reichardt in Focus," When Wendy steals, her "focus is to feed her family. She is not thinking about repercussions nor does she seem disturbed morally by stealing from the store, which might indicate" that it is not the first time she has shoplifted in order to feed Lucy (Hall, 100).
Ironically, it is in the commission of the criminal act of shoplifting that Wendy displays her greatest character strength, her altruistic love for Lucy. In another bit of irony, it is when she goes to the greatest length for Lucy that she ends up losing her. This foreshadows the end, in which, in order to earn enough money to take care of Lucy, Wendy must "lose" her for a time.
Because the nature of the love in "Wendy and Lucy" is different than that of the love in films we have viewed previously, the affect that capitalistic pressures have on it is also different. Specifically, because Wendy's love for Lucy is a caring love, not merely a sexual love, it is able to withstand economic difficulties. It is important to remember that Wendy cares for Lucy even in the midst of her homelessness, showing that "one can love without money." Indeed, even leaving Lucy with someone who could give her a better life was an act of selfless love.
That being said, all these instances also show that while "one can love without money," it is not easy to love without money. Loving without money forces one to make tough decisions (stealing, for an extreme example) about which to prioritize. Oftentimes, as in the case of Wendy giving up Lucy, the sacrificial option will be unpleasant and the sacrifice will hardly seem to be worth it.
I too was interested in some of the economic influences on the film, although when I was watching the film, I was interested in how Wendy was marginalized in American society, which two classmates have already touched on at the time I'm writing.
Bauman's chapter "State, Democracy and the Management of Fears" is perfectly characterized by Wendy. On excluded peoples, Bauman said that "the irrevocability of exclusion is a direct, though unforeseen consequence of the decomposition of the social state (69)."
Many other readings have touched on how political Reichardt's films are by nature. I would argue that this was the most political film we've watched so far. Released two months after the stock market crash in 2008, the film was a poignant depiction of the result of the economic conservatism championed by the likes of Reagan and Bush and mentioned in Bauman's passage above. One could view Wendy's progression through the plot like how the average American family progressed through the Bush administration and even to the modern day. She certainly didn't have a lot at the beginning of the film, but she was perfectly used to functioning within her limited means. By the end of the film (i.e. late 2008 to 2009), she hardly had anything. No car, no dog, nothing.
Wendy's social interactions in the film, which were dictated by her economic standing, show how badly marginalized after all (excuse me if I'm repeating others' examples here). She was hardly worth the mechanic's time, as he interrupted her at the counter to talk with someone who sounded like a friend of his. She wouldn't have been there if she had a nicer, working car. The worker at the pound snarkily asked "no address?" as she searched for Lucy. Why was she there? Because an overzealous minimum wage-earning teenager (who obviously came from a higher socioeconomic level) got her in trouble for stealing what couldn't have been more than $2 of food and her dog was consequently taken. It's also worth noting that low income citizens are much more likely to end up in jail, like Wendy did, further illustrating some of Reichardt's political commentary in the film.
Although the security guard was a tremendous help to Wendy and a good friend, you can't help but think it was because he felt bad for her. "Nobody uses a pay phone anymore," he told her before letting her use his phone for the first time. That, I felt, was one of the best lines that illustrated the economic divide in the film. I don't think he meant it to be condescending, but it certainly was.
I enjoy discussing politics quite a bit, and as such I thought this was a great film- maybe even my favorite of the entire course so far. I'm disappointed I didn't know about Reichardt sooner.
I really liked your post Joseph. This movie has definitely been a great example of the "One cannot love without money" theme of the class. i founder it interesting in the movie we saw today, Wendy resembles the type of person that Kelly Reichardt talked about in her interview. Specifically the woman who had car issues and Kelly herself had pulled over to the side of the road to help her. Kelly said that even though the woman did not have much money, she didn't seem to fazed or emotionally distraught about her situation, she was methodical in her approach and only concerned herself with what needed to be done next. Nothing else. I feel like Wendy is the same way. She lives her life one day at a time carefully budgeting each penny and only buying necessities.
The other example I thought about from the movie that deals with the struggle of love and money is when Wendy decides to call home. It sounded like when she was talking to her brother that she just doesn't have a close relationship with her mother and alludes that Wendy has probably asked for money in the past. Wendy calls in distress and her family is unable to provide for her and money, or love for that matter. Good post!
Wendy and Lucy (2008) for me, was very sad, as I found myself tearing up a little bit towards the end, when Wendy makes that difficult decision to leave Lucy behind. Yet, at the same time, this movie was very beautiful—in a strange way. Reichardt expresses in her BOMB Magazine interview, “the decay is strongest in Wendy and Lucy. Falling into this abyss of hopelessness”. This decay, which resonates with Reichardt as she goes on in the interview to describe her feelings towards society’s indifference, is rather a beautiful operation in the film. Instead of examining it through such a lens, one might consider how Wendy’s final choice is done with greatness, which even in the darkest of moments, a small glimmer of light illuminates.
Wendy’s mode of decomposition is observable as she goes from sleeping in her car, to sleeping on the dirt. She becomes a part of nature itself in that moment, as we see her detaching from society. Her separation begins with her car breaking down, theft, and of course losing Lucy. The moment that Lucy is gone, Wendy on some level, seems to be invisible to society. Notably, the police officer not responding to Wendy’s plea about Lucy being left behind, and he simply tells her to, “just relax”. Compared to the observable, but neglected operation of decomposing in nature, Wendy embodies that cycle of life. When something decays in nature, for instance, fungi decomposing, one does not want to watch nor wait for fungi to decay. It is not an attractive thing to watch.
Yet, Wendy’s decay is indeed attractive. Unlike nature’s operation of decay, where an object whither and dies alone, Wendy has the Walgreen’s security guard to help her find Lucy. With the real darkness of society, looming over her (the stranger who stumbles upon her) there is still a small source of light where she can get some baring on her life. When we think Wendy is alone in the film’s world, she actually has some help through the security guard. Even with everything appearing to fall apart for her, she discovers for the first time in the film, a sense of maturity, or rather, the opposite of decay—growth.
We discover that through the act of leaving Lucy behind, Wendy makes a very mature realization. One cannot take care of another, if one is incapable of taking care of one’s self. Through this notion, Wendy makes a difficult, but necessary choice, that within itself is a decay of her relationship with Lucy, but it is beautified through Wendy’s growth. The brilliant part of this beauty in the film is that it needs to music for the audience to get this notion. Instead, Reichardt allows the natural sounds that occur to convey beauty in growth. For one last time, we hear an owner and her dog playing catch. We can listen to Wendy’s laugh and Lucy’s bark, and we can hear Wendy’s sadness in her voice as she lets Lucy go—a beautiful decay.
I think that the themes shared in the two Italian neorealist films and Wendy and Lucy are really interesting. It gives us a view that we don't really think about. In all three of these films, the characters are in such dire economic circumstances but also have another living thing that relies solely on them as well. Even though in the Bicycle Thief it is a child and the other two are dogs, I think the premise is generally the same. Children of that age and dogs are both creatures that rely on their parents or owners unconditionally while also relying on them completely for food and shelter.
I think that Reichardt does an excellent job in the film, driving this point home. One thing that makes this film do powerful, is just how alone Wendy is. Reichardt mentions it in her interview with Gus Van Sant, Wendy is caught in this spiral that is leading to complete economic devastation. Wendy appears to make a friend in the security guard, he goes out of his way to help her find Lucy, but the scene that really stands out to me is when they part ways and he offers her $7. Obviously this isn't a lot of money at all but it is exactly what Reichardt talks about in the same interview, "That’s the question the mechanic and the security guard face in Wendy and Lucy: how much should each person give to the next person? What’s our responsibility to each other?" The guard makes it seem like he is helping a lot, or at least makes it out that way by instructing Wendy to not the the woman in the car see the money he slips her. We get a feeling that he is really helping her out, but the up close shot on the money tells us otherwise.
Another scene I thought was powerful was when she is caught shoplifting dog food and the young store employee goes out of her way to "make and example out of her". There was some talk (in the readings) that this was a little unrealistic, for a employee of that age working at a grocery store to be that interested in seeking justice but I think that it appears not so much that he really wants justice for the theft but may actually be doing something he thinks makes sense and that is: someone who can't take care of themselves should not be trying to take care of another living thing, like a dog. However, in the scene where Wendy is looking for Lucy behind the store and runs into the kid again, I think that it goes back to that quote again. He may have been responsible for her losing track of her dog, but the way he keeps his eyes down and rushes to his ride's car suggests that he still doesn't feel like he owes her any help.
I can’t help but feel extremely fortunate and a little bit guilty as I sit down to write this assignment in the comfort of my warm apartment which my stable jobs and supportive parents have helped me maintain. Wendy and Lucy was an absolutely fantastic film, and it was a bitter joy to watch. “Reichardt uses realism, the adopted tool of dominant ideologies, to show audiences the overlooked or marginalized: women, poor and working class people, and the homeless.” (Hall, 93) Reichardt is a master at telling stories with purpose, effectiveness, and clarity whilst maintaining just the right amount of ambiguity.
In her 1995 interview with Bomb magazine, Kelly states that “I do like realism in the movies—just not to the point where you aren’t sure why you’re at the movies”. This is something that came across really strongly in both of her films we’ve watched so far - it totally feels like you’re watching someone’s real life unfold before you, but the artful way in which it was shot and paced makes if feel like you’re being told a story. Her ability to balance believability and fantasy is mesmerizing and something more screenwriters and directors should strive for.
As others have already mentioned, there were some pretty clear influences and parallels between the Italian films we watched today and Wendy and Lucy. I really enjoyed how Reichardt incorporated these into her vision; the inspiration was clear, but she definitely made it her own and tailored it to effectively tell her story.
I’d like to point out my two favorite aspects of the film, which were very small details. The first is that the boy who stops her from shoplifting and actively seeks to have her punished for so insignificant a crime was wearing a large, prominently displayed cross necklace. I think that this was a pretty good allusion to the Republican party at the time (though it still applies now). Many conservatives claim to live by the word of Jesus Christ, but only a fraction of them actually do. Christianity is supposed to be a religion about giving and sharing what you can, treating others with kindness and understanding, and believing that your judgement of others isn’t the one that matters. If that asshole of a kid wanted to show how much he understood the teachings of his own religious text, he would have offered to buy the dog food for her, suggested some other way for her to feed Lucy, or at the very least just let her off with a warning. Instead, he made sure her life went from bad to worse even though she was clearly in a tough situation and didn’t deserve such harsh treatment.
The second is how the sound was mixed in the scene with the homeless man. “According to Aguilar, many homeless women ride all night on busses or find twentyfour-hour coffee shops because being a homeless woman is very dangerous.” (Hall, 98) I initially found her camping out in the woods to be peaceful (while the sun was shining), but as soon as night fell I got immediately uncomfortable. I just knew that if anyone who meant to harm her happened across her, she would be caught totally off guard. While the dark, unclear shots certainly added to the feelings of fear generated by the following scene, what sealed it for me was the sound of the train. Wendy wakes up to find that someone, a possibly threatening someone, is rifling through her belongings and talking about how hard his life is. At that point, both my mind and Wendy’s minds were racing, scrambling, trying to assess the situation and find the best way to get out of it unharmed. The sound of the train going by, honking and screeching and clanking, mimicked that perfectly. I couldn’t hear what the man was saying over the sound of the train, and that’s because it didn’t really matter. He was a threat, and the thought process of how to get away from such a threat is always more important than what the threat is doing. Survival always takes priority.
This film was beautiful, painful, and had an important message. I felt that the ending, though a tough pill to swallow, was sadly the best outcome for Wendy and Lucy. Wendy needed to get to Alaska. Lucy needed to be taken care of. There was no way both of them could get that. To me, those last few scenes were a perfect summation of the suffering and sacrifices the less fortunate have to go through each and every day.
The ending was a tough pill to swallow. I think the thing I liked about it the most was how we as an audience are expecting this triumphant reunited experience between Wendy and Lucy and that they both would run to each other super happy to finally be together again and then they both would get in the car and go on their happy way to Alaska. That it was I felt was GOING to happen, but Reichardt enjoys taking her viewers on an emotionally journey with lots of twist and turns and you never quite end where you think you are going to.
The other example I can think of is in Old Joy, the Mark and Kurt have a lot of chit chat, but they never seem to get in any huge arguments. I kept expecting one of them to lose their temper or have a breakdown and it never happened. I think that Reichardt really likes to keep us always guessing.
Italian neorealist film writer Cesare Zavattini is quoted saying, "I believe in imagination, but I have more faith in reality, in people. I am not interested in prearranged encounters, in the drama of things that happen to come together." The story of Wendy and Lucy was a movie that followed a character for a small portion of her life. Nothing extraordinary happened. There was no beginning, no middle, and no end to the story. The film briefly shed light on what Wendy was trying to accomplish (move to Alaska for work) but we never saw if she was successful. Although Wendy was confronted by difficult circumstances I would hesitate to say there was a climax to the movie. Zavattini's quote perfectly exemplified the story of Wendy and Lucy for me. Much of Wendy's struggle was left up to our imagination because we only saw a small glimpse of her life. What we did see was engaging enough to keep our interest but in the end the film ended without a true resolve, much like real life.
I like that Reichardt keeps her stories grounded. I think it makes the film more relatable. I do think that almost all of Wendy's misfortunes happened on her own accord. The whole reason why she lost her dog in the first place was because she was trying to pocket dog food and some fruit (Mind you when she still have $500+). Money aside, the dog was slowing Wendy down. She was spending her who day looking for her dog when she should have been spending it trying to better her own situation. One cannot love without happiness, and one can't love a dog without money.
After reading the Interview done by Zachary Wigon, it really got me thinking about the depth this film really takes on. Kelly Reichardt says in the interview, “It’s just the disdain for poverty, and that assumption that opportunity is lying at our feet, all we have to do is bend over and pick it up. If you’re not getting your slice of the pie, it’s just because you’re obviously too lazy.” Wendy was that person that everyone thought she was just trying to get a hand out. A specific scene is when she is caught stealing the dog food. (Which goes hand in hand with the Italian neorealism film we watched today.) The grocery clerk is very abrupt in making sure she “gets what she deserves” and annoyingly repeating that rules are rules and that we have to follow them. That scene relates to the type of political information she is so easily throwing into the film. This film was created during the Bush administration and after Hurricane Katrina. That makes the film play so much more with the need to make poverty known and the huge emphasis on “how much is that going to cost me.” Throughout the film you really don’t see anyone above middle class, but even then, the middle class somehow looks down upon a young girl trying to find her way. That like Reichardt says, there are opportunities laying at our feet and she is just to lazy to go grab one. Kyle makes a good point as well, “one cannot love without money.” Even the security guard at Walgreens feels the need to help and he gives her money.
Everyone loves to believe that people are going to help and that its human nature to helps someone, but the ability to help only happens when it’s convenient for the other person. People like the lady at the animal shelter, the car repairman, etc., with the exception of the security guard at the local Walgreens. It was really refreshing to see the effort Reichardt made is stating that there is hope in all of this mess. Now I know she often leaves the sense of hope an interpretation for the viewers, but in my opinion, the security guard was the little good left in the world. By spreading that love to Wendy it could influence her to spread that same kindness and joy. There was a sense of hope with the interaction between them.
Completely contradicting with the ending because my own “happily ever after” was crushed when Wendy and Lucy didn’t end up back together headed to Alaska. Although, it stays true to the neorealism and pulls right from the ending of The Bicycle Thief, He didn’t end up with a bike and Wendy doesn’t end up with Lucy.
One thing I noticed in this film was the graffiti on the walls. In one scene where Wendy walks by a brown wall it says, "anger". This is after she has been arrested but before she realizes Lucy is gone. Then afterwards when she has looked for Lucy she walks by the same wall and in the same spot it says, "Goner."
There are some foreshadowing qualities to these tags that i thought were fun, but it seemed out of character for Reichardt.
While it may be a coincidence it is fun to relate Wendy to Graffiti. Graffiti shows up on walls and stays there until it is painted over and removed. Graffiti is frowned upon by the majority of society. It is the same with homelessness. Many people disregard the homeless and don't see their value. They want them gone, just to disappear.
That's an interesting observation. I didn't notice that at all. It does seem uncharacteristic of KR to put these subtle foreshadowing background easter eggs in the film. She may have done it because she has stated she's not a fan of symbolism so instead of being ambiguous about the trajectory of the character she blatantly paints it on a wall. Who knows what her reasoning was behind this, but it is fascinating.
Throughout the three weeks of this class, I’ve learned a lot about film making, considering this is my first film director’s class. From week one to our final week, I have learned to focus on the importance of different camera views/angles, the background music or noise, the meaning of colors, etc. Already in the beginning of Wendy and Lucy there is a close up image of the train wheels in one scene and in another scene there is view of the top of the train on the bottom of the film, there are many different angles of the train as it is slowly moving. What I like about this film and OLD JOY is that Reichardt uses a lot of different views. Another example of a camera view that was intriguing to me in Wendy and Lucy was when the camera was moving from the distance in the woods, as if someone is following Wendy and Lucy. There are two times when Wendy is changing in the bathroom, the first time the camera view is only to her legs, showing how skinny she is. The next camera view of her changing was just of her shirt, which you could see then how skinny her arms were.
The role of the police officer also makes the film interesting, at one point of the film when Wendy is removing all of her belongings in her car, the police officer is watching her do this. Earlier in the film, he tries to help her out with her dog, and then asks again if she has found her dog yet. You get the impression the cop feels somewhat bad for her and he lets her use his cellphone saying that “no one uses payphones anymore.” He lets her use his phone number for the pound. Toward the end of the film he gives Wendy some money to help her out. Wendy doesn’t have anyone except for the dog and you get a sense that he understood where she was coming from.
In OLD JOY, as we discussed in class today, the film is slower paced until the ending of the film where it was suddenly faster paced. In Wendy and Lucy, the location of the film makes the film feel slower but Wendy herself seems to always be in a hurry. For example; she acts like she is wasting time and doesn’t have time with waiting in line for the aluminum cans. Also, the scene when Wendy is in jail, waiting to be released, they redo her finger prints, the camera shows the clock. As she gets off the bus in a hurry to run over to the grocery store, to only see that her dog is missing. She is frustrated with herself because Lucy is gone. Again, when she wants to go see her dog at the pound, she tells the police man that she wants to go see her now instead waiting until the morning and then the cop says that it isn’t open until tomorrow morning. In my opinion, Reichardt wanted to make the film seem slower since Wendy was in a “dead” town as “goner” was graphitized on the wall, you get a sense that this a lost town, as the police officer says people use to work at the mill until it shut down. Overall, though the ending was sad, it was realistic, she knew that Lucy would be in better hands with the foster family.
“The film provides almost no exposition, so its characters exist only in the present” (Leonard Quart). Before you start, yes I’m aware that this was used to describe Meeks Cutoff; that’s the auteur theory at work. I think this line really fits a movie like Wendy and Lucy as well, one that explains very little but still remains engaging enough to keep the audience attentive. Wendy has no back ground and a very unstable future. She reacts to each new, seemingly mundane event with the shock and terror appropriate to someone who has very little and loses it. There is honesty to the film that I found bothersome at times because it fit my own life so well. I think anyone who drives, regardless of whether the car is a tool or your home, knows the terror of an unrealized problem prohibiting them from driving. This is a film of mistakes unlike any of the other films. Instead of someone who is moving upward losing their way (like many of Petzolds films) or someone who is on top falling (like many of Assayas’s) this is simply the story of a Wendy, who is as close to non-existence as possible, losing some of the few things tying her to this world through a series of mistakes that are mostly her own doing. She isn’t necessarily being oppressed by a system. She operates within capitalism only as much as she really needs to. Her destination, a place in Alaska, is more of a distant hope than a sure-fire solution to her problems. She loses her dog because she tries to cheat someone else. She loses her car because she decided to postpone fixing something simple for too long. In the end the only lesson she learns is that she has to worry about herself and her problems more and doesn’t have time, money, or energy to take care of Lucy. The ending was shocking to me because it didn’t follow either route that I had imagined possible. Instead, it offers a simple human moment of self-realization that very few films ever reach.
I felt the exact same way about KR's approach to telling Wendy's story. We were dropped into her story, there really wasn't a beginning, middle, or end. The struggles she endured were mostly caused by her own doing or lack of action. I related this back to KR's quote in the interview we watched in class where KR said she "saw a woman on the side of the road with car problems. The woman was not panicked. The only thing on her mind was finding a car jack. Then a spare time. Then the next thing. It was as if she viewed life as a checklist." (paraphrased). KR said this was her inspiration for the character Wendy and I could see Michelle Williams' motivations for the character through the story of the woman KR spoke of.
Opening class with scenes from The Bicycle Thief really set us up for the structure of Wendy and Lucy. They both had a large statement of the socio-economic status of the working poor/homeless but both from such very different time frames and contexts. Director Kelly Reichardt talks of the influence Italian Neorealism had on the film and how it’s even more relevant today in America than ever before. She says, with the “lack of education, lack of social skills, lack of a financial net - can you get a toehold into the next rung on the ladder? Not even to get to the middle class - can you get anywhere? And that was what we started out with.”
In both stories, Antonio and Wendy are at the bottom of their class structures with only one person on their side. Eventually they are alienated by that person in one way or another. The way Wendy loses her car is parallel to Antonio losing the bike and that’s the one thing that can get them to their destination. Other than the plot similarities, Di Sica and Reichardt both capture the realism of their surroundings with lots of b-roll or scenery footage to really put you in the setting.
I think Reichardt’s view of the class systems in America are cynical but hold much truth. The young clerk that works at the grocery store and turns Wendy in explains to her boss that “The rules apply to everyone equally. If a person can’t afford dog food then they shouldn’t have a dog.” It seems disheartening to think that a young teenager would turn in a homeless woman who wasn’t even stealing food for herself, she had a couple of cheap cans of dog food. I felt his stubbornness didn’t fit, it seemed like he was adamant that she be reprimanded for her actions when he is at an age that mistakes are a part of growing up. Another statement on the cycle of poverty is from the security guard when he says “You can’t get an address without an address, you can’t get a job without a job - it’s all fixed.” This is the reality of the American dream that Reichardt so perfectly depicts. When you are poor or born into poverty, you’re treated as if it were a choice. However, not once does Wendy try to explain her situation to anyone, she never asks for help or pity, she only says “I’m passing through.” I saw this phrasing as the only hope that Wendy could still hold on to - that all of this was temporary and that she wasn’t to her destination yet.
Responding on Bomb Magazine, Reichardt states that, “There’s a certain kind of help that society will give and a certain help it won’t give.” This was of particular interest to watching Wendy and Lucy (2008) for two reasons. First, this aspect of “certain kinds of help” was present in the two Italian Neorealist films screened today. Secondly, the presence of Reichardt’s influence from real life inspiration, inform the way the film plays out with the questions of help and the results of lacking that help.
ReplyDeleteIn The Bicycle Thief (1948) the protagonist is on his own when chasing the thief. In contrast, as someone pointed out in class, it is “hyperbolical” to the massive number of people that prevent him from stealing the bike. This is significant when observed that the second man, along with the ones who help him are better dressed with handkerchiefs, ties, and suits that contrast to his wrinkled attire and worn, multipurpose shirt. In the other piece, the man is asking the nanny to take the dog, to which she rejects him by ironically saying, “What a bargain!” A reply to which his hurt spills out with the words, “But I am giving him up in exchange for nothing. A dog like him, for nothing!”
Within Reichardt’s experience, her realization comes at observing that, “I’m driving a Subaru. I’m white, and [the police officer] basically told me I should go on my way. He was doing nothing to assist her, and it was like, 110 degrees and her car was in a ditch on the side of Highway Ten. This woman was not going to get community help” (Bomb Magazine). Her experience and the way it formed her subsequent questions about class, appearance, and social status, and how they relate to the types of help one can ask for, make Wendy a more believable character.
Desensitized to the predominance of poverty and homelessness, Wendy’s status, as a young, white woman don’t help her anymore. She is punished for her poverty. For example, she doesn’t get the same assistance she could from the pound because of her lack of stability. The mechanic proves unsympathetic and disregarding of her directions—most pointedly when he describes checking the gas, to which she alarmingly stares back at him, through a recurrent close-up of her face, and states she didn’t ask for that. The help she receives comes from someone who is not in a position to bring her economic relief. More than anything, the security guard offers a disruption to the cycle of unfortunate circumstances.
Help, like time, and money has become a commodity reserved to those who can give something in return. Poverty is the new social threat, and it is to be regarded as such, and marginalized. In Reichardt’s own words, “It’s just the disdain for poverty” (“A Completely False Security”). The film’s direct address to these issue, a circular, self-fulfilling economic decay is seen when Wendy and the security guard talk about not being able to get an address without an address, a job without a job, or a job without an address. Once inside the cycle, getting out is an endless process, and one without help.
Reichardt’s camera creates the endless feeling of inescapability through its long-takes, and constant shots of Wendy’s distressed face. They are redundant and constant. Most significantly and representative is the sequence of her running away from her night assailant, Wendy runs from the right to the left side of the frame. Quick cuts offer a different background through which she is running, but there is no starting or ending destination. She is not looking for help because there is none. It is a blind escape into darkness. It is just a constant, mashed together sequence of moving, but returning to the right side of the frame and starting over—the endless, helpless cycle.
Another quick point I would like to point out, since nobody yet has mentioned it is the humming that occurs, and that seems the only "music" in the film. This aspect of the film was particularly intriguing since it brought to mind the whisper of "Ali" from Petzold's Jerichow (2008). When the movie begins there is a woman's humming resonating in the screen. When Lucy walks into the frame from the left side, and is followed by Wendy, it seems as if she is the one humming. However, she begins talking to Lucy and asking for the stick. Through this, it becomes obvious that she is not the one humming since her voice sounds distant--a complete opposite from the loud and clear humming.
DeleteThis occurs again when she gets off the taxi and starts walking to meet Lucy. Again, the humming is introduced, and through Wendy talking to the taxi driver, it is established as an extra-diegetic sound. Finally, the last time this phenomenon occurs is when there is a side, tracking shot from the train cart into the forest and trees that Wendy is leaving.
This is the first time that she is not shown, up-close, or at a distance to disassociate the humming as hers. However, through the camera set-up, the shot could be a point-of-view shot. If this is so, the possibility that the humming finally aligns with the right situational and spacial setting for the humming to be diegetic is likely. Consequently, if this is Wendy humming as the train departs, how does this affect her departure? Does it make a difference? What does it mean that the film starts with the end (sound wise)?
I wondered whether the humming possibly being diegetic in the last shot reflected on Wendy's outlook on the future and her present state of being. I wondered whether it took the place of the missing closing shot of her.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI wondered about the humming as well. It seems as though the humming is representative of Lucy being gone. The first time we here the humming in the opening sequence and then it stops as soon as Wendy has lost Lucy and begins to search. The next time we hear it, it’s in the grocery store and that is ultimately where she loses Lucy. The final time is the ending scene where she has left Lucy behind, but says she will come back some day.
DeleteHaving the humming being the only extra diegetic sound really put emphasis on the few times we heard it. Whether it was foreshadowing or subtle hints, it really forces the audience to be weary every time we heard that hum.
In Gus Van Sant’s interview with Kelly Reichardt in BOMB Magazine, Reichardt says, “there’s the theme of certain people not being of any use to society—maybe they’re too old or poor so they’re a blight—they’re like stray dogs” (Reichardt). I find it very interesting that she makes this statement because we have both a dog and a human character in Wendy and Lucy, and they appear to have switched roles. That is, it seems like Lucy is the grounded one - the owner, per se - and Wendy is the stray dog. Wendy is quite literally too poor, and so she doesn’t offer much to society, while Lucy, even though she may not have much, is doing pretty well for herself, especially at the end of the film, when we find she has been rescued by a better owner. The story revolves around Wendy being a “stray dog.” At first, she doesn’t seem totally stray, just lost, trying to find her way “back home” (that is, she is trying to get to Alaska so she can get a job and hopefully make enough of a living to survive). However, as the plot unfolds, she is met with many challenges - her car breaks down, she has to pay a fine for shoplifting, and she loses her beloved dog. These challenges eventually become too great for Wendy to overcome, and she realizes that, in fact, that since she doesn’t have enough money for dog food she shouldn’t have a dog at all (paraphrased from Wendy and Lucy). Reichardt also said in BOMB, “Oddly, some people see the film’s ending as having hope. I didn’t see that much hope” (Reichardt). My interpretation of the ending, too, is that Wendy doesn’t have much hope. Wendy has realized that she cannot have love without money, and it doesn’t seem like she has a means for getting more money.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the Italian neorealism movie clips in class, then the movie Wendy and Lucy, it's clearly evident that's partly where Kelly Reichardt got her influences from. They were all so similar.
ReplyDeleteIn the first example movie of neorealism, the bicycle thief, there were two parts that were used in Wendy and Lucy. First, the long tracking shot in the pound in Wendy and Lucy is very similar to the scene of the black market of all the bicycles and the bicycle parts. The other shared technique was when Wendy left Lucy outside the grocery store to steal some dog food. In the Bicycle thief, the main character tried to send his some away while he stole the bike. He was stealing the bike for the child in a sense because if the father has the bike, then he also has a job that puts food on the table for his son. Wendy did the same thing to Lucy, and both Lucy and the child in the bicycle thief witnessed the wrongful action. Or both of them getting caught.
In Umberto D, it's a little more difficult to find the similarities, but they are there. Both characters had little to no money really. Despite that, they did anything they could for their dog. In Umberto D, the main character gave the dog his food at the food bank place. Wendy tried to steal food from a grocery store for her dog. Both tried to give the dog a better home, and Wendy really did, but the old man didn't. The similarity is that they both tried.
Other common techniques used by Reichardt were the long shot and being filmed on location. These styles help give off the sense of realism, and the audience is actually joining this character on their story for however long the film lasts.
I liked how you connected Wendy and Lucy to the Italian neo-realism films that we've watched in class.
DeleteThe term "example" was also tossed the same way in both Wendy and Lucy and Bicycle Thief when they got caught. Both Wendy and the father were expected to lead a good example. To me, it was pretty unusual for the employee to say that she was a bad example to her dog though. As said in the movie and in class, the humiliation of the father being caught was punishment enough for his crime. So, I think that Lucy being missing was indirectly Wendy's punishment hence creates another similarity between the two films in terms of its message that there are consequences for bad doings.
Another similarity between Umberto B and Wendy and Lucy that I would like to add was the camera angle at the end of both movies. At the end where Wendy found Lucy at the foster home, the point of view shifted to Lucy's. The scenes were taken at lower angles looking up. This was similar to Umberto D. Another important aspect that I've noticed in both movies were the roles the dogs played. They were both lifesavers of their owners. We see it in a more literal way in Umberto D but for Wendy and Lucy, Lucy gave Wendy a purpose and responsibility. Lucy prevented Wendy from being a "ghost".
It was pretty nice that we visited Italian Neorealist films in class, which is my favorite genre of film to critically analyze. However, there was one element in Wendy and Lucy that seemed even more neorealist than the others, particularily contrasting it with the Umberto D clip we watched.
DeleteBoth films are centered around dogs as companions. It's a classic combination, one that dates back to the silent era. Dogs are man's best friend, after all. However, the depiction of the dog in the Umberto D. film and Lucy are radically different, and I believe that is because of the "authenticity" of Lucy's performance. It's bizarre to talk about a dog's acting, but hear me out. Italian Neorealism is defined by it's attempt to capture realism by using real sets, real lighting, and "real" people (non-actors). However, it's clear that the dog in Umberto D. is trained to do tricks for the film, such as the begging and the hopping in the final scene we witness. This is clearly a trick the dog was trained to do, and seems bizarre to fit in a neorealist film (from my perspective, I had not seen the whole film). However, it's clear that Lucy is a dog who isn't trained to do tricks, therefore Lucy's "performance" isn't a performance at all, she's acting the way she would around others which gives the bond between the two a greater authenticity. There are even a few moments where Lucy unintentionally breaks the fourth wall by looking into the camera, which isn't an issue because it feels natural for her to do so. Throughout the film, the audience establishes a connection with Lucy like we would with any other dog, because she feels like a real dog. I don't think I can say that about the dog in Umberto D, but I may just be assuming.
Nice point!
DeleteAlong with that, I see that the use of a dog was able to connect the audience with neorealism more. For a lot of people keeping care of a dog is just another mundane task in their day. That paired with the struggling life of Wendy strongly suggested to me that it was one of the few normal tasks left in her life. Brushing her teeth in the dirty restroom and changing her clothes while keeping her bare feet on top her shoes brought her away from the normal repetition of the acts, while Wendy was much more comfortable walking Lucy around.
DeleteOf course when Wendy loses Lucy is when her life really starts to crumble. She loses her lifeline and now has to face her ever-dwindling sum of money, and car problems by herself. I think the review of the film said it best, “ it prods us to recognize just how isolated Wendy has become—or has purposely left herself—from other human beings.” Like the man from Umberto D, Wendy has connected with her dog on a deeper level than any people she meets. While many people consider their dog their “best friend” the statement rings true for the two characters.
Like in The Bicycle Thief, Wendy’s life is pushed on pause until she finds her dog, (in the other film is was the bicycle of course) and it only pushes her into debt even more while she is waiting. This reliance on her dog almost gives Wendy a childish feeling that is common among Italian neorealism films. She acts immaturely when she is caught stealing the food by not telling the truth, and again when she is searching for Lucy outside of the supermarket. Again, this lends her desperate plight towards the feeling of neorealism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the start of Wendy and Lucy was somewhat similar to Old Joy. They both start with things that were contradicting with one another for example in Old Joy, Mark was meditating in silence outside then it shifts to a scene with loud noises in the house whereas in Wendy and Lucy, we start off at the train tracks and then we are in the forest. It showcases two totally different worlds. Another similarity between Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy that I found interesting was when the characters reached their climax, they close their eyes as a sign of relief or letting go. When Wendy received good news that Lucy was found, she closes her eyes in relief.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I love how Reichardt plots her stories around daily life problems such as poverty or losing someone or something. This makes is more real and believable. It relates more with the audience which explains why we do not need that much narrative about the characters to fully understand the film. She not only plots around daily life problems, but she also captures the beauty of things.
“They are authentic train-hopping gutter punks. That was one of the hardest nights of shooting. They were demanding drugs and alcohol, and some of them were really young and pissed that we weren’t getting them drunk. A lot is gained by them being authentic, I loved shooting them through the firelight; I mean, their faces are amazing” (Focus 95).
From the interview and earlier readings, we know that she loves emphasizing on the surrounding environments to showcase the beauty of the forest and also how much it has changed in time. However, she also loves emphasizing on the beauty and true colours of humanity through her camera skills and plot. Although there is this negative stereotypes against gutter punks, Reichardt manages to capture a side of them that society does not see. Despite being gutter punks, they were friendly and nice towards Wendy and Lucy. They did not bring harm in anyway.
According to BOMB Magazine, Reichardt said “In those films there’s the theme of certain people not being of any use to society—maybe they’re too old or poor so they’re a blight—they’re like stray dogs”. It is true that Wendy is just drifting from place to place in society with no purpose or future. She doesn’t have a home or a phone. However, by having Lucy, it gave her a sense of responsibility and purpose, without her, she will merely be a “ghost” living in the midst of society
In many ways, I think Wendy and Lucy illustrate the thesis of this class, "One cannot love without money," more than any other film. Although the plot we see in the film is Wendy's search for Lucy, the real threat that hangs over the film is the possibility of destitution and homelessness, of being poor. Much like the main character in the Bicycle Thief, we see Wendy, throughout the course of the film, lose everything of any value. Through her story, we see a certain kind of logic of capitalism. The security guard says it best when he says something along the lines of "You need a job to get a job. You need an address to get an address." This film explores the bottom of capitalism, where many American's are currently at. And it's a place that pretty much any middle-class person can find themselves suddenly living it, through no fault of their own. It's not that Wendy doesn't have a family, it's that that family, her brother who she calls from a pay phone, is also at the end of his financial ropes and so is unable to help, and to love. Although this movie is pretty bleak, there are also a few remarkable instances of kindness, from the security guard, from the mechanic, from the pet foster parent, but the thing is is that all of these "kindnesses" are economic ones. The security card lets her use his phone, saving Wendy a quarter. Later he gives her 6 or 7 dollars. The mechanic gives her a discount. And finally, the reason why Wendy ends up leaving Lucy at the foster home was due to her economic circumstances. Now although all of this kindnesses can be quantified monetarily, that doesn't mean they are not profound acts of altruism. As we see Wendy lose hundreds of dollars throughout the movie, the small gains she is able to make feel like acts of love. When one is system in which one needs money to function, money can very well be kindness. Much like how her brother couldn't take of Wendy, Wendy must sadly leave Lucy to fend for herself because she doesn't have enough money to support her.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are right that "Wendy and Lucy" pertains to the theme of the class perhaps more so than the films we have viewed up to this point. To me, the connection between capitalism and love is especially clear in this film because the love in the film is between a woman and her dog. This removes the sexually-based love present in many of Petzold and Assayas' films and replaces it with a "purer" love based on altruism and loyalty.
DeleteWendy's sacrificial love for Lucy is present throughout the film, but is especially prevalent when she is arrested for stealing. Indeed, the very reason she loses Lucy at the grocery store is because she is caught stealing dog food for Lucy. Wendy could have stolen food for herself (she may have stolen the cookies for herself, but it is impossible to tell since they are never seen again after she puts them in her coat pocket) or at least stolen food that both her and Lucy could eat, but instead she steals two cans of dog food. As E. Dawn Hall says in "Kelly Reichardt in Focus," When Wendy steals, her "focus is to feed her family. She is not thinking about repercussions nor does she seem disturbed morally by stealing from the store, which might indicate" that it is not the first time she has shoplifted in order to feed Lucy (Hall, 100).
Ironically, it is in the commission of the criminal act of shoplifting that Wendy displays her greatest character strength, her altruistic love for Lucy. In another bit of irony, it is when she goes to the greatest length for Lucy that she ends up losing her. This foreshadows the end, in which, in order to earn enough money to take care of Lucy, Wendy must "lose" her for a time.
Because the nature of the love in "Wendy and Lucy" is different than that of the love in films we have viewed previously, the affect that capitalistic pressures have on it is also different. Specifically, because Wendy's love for Lucy is a caring love, not merely a sexual love, it is able to withstand economic difficulties. It is important to remember that Wendy cares for Lucy even in the midst of her homelessness, showing that "one can love without money." Indeed, even leaving Lucy with someone who could give her a better life was an act of selfless love.
That being said, all these instances also show that while "one can love without money," it is not easy to love without money. Loving without money forces one to make tough decisions (stealing, for an extreme example) about which to prioritize. Oftentimes, as in the case of Wendy giving up Lucy, the sacrificial option will be unpleasant and the sacrifice will hardly seem to be worth it.
I too was interested in some of the economic influences on the film, although when I was watching the film, I was interested in how Wendy was marginalized in American society, which two classmates have already touched on at the time I'm writing.
DeleteBauman's chapter "State, Democracy and the Management of Fears" is perfectly characterized by Wendy. On excluded peoples, Bauman said that "the irrevocability of exclusion is a direct, though unforeseen consequence of the decomposition of the social state (69)."
Many other readings have touched on how political Reichardt's films are by nature. I would argue that this was the most political film we've watched so far. Released two months after the stock market crash in 2008, the film was a poignant depiction of the result of the economic conservatism championed by the likes of Reagan and Bush and mentioned in Bauman's passage above. One could view Wendy's progression through the plot like how the average American family progressed through the Bush administration and even to the modern day. She certainly didn't have a lot at the beginning of the film, but she was perfectly used to functioning within her limited means. By the end of the film (i.e. late 2008 to 2009), she hardly had anything. No car, no dog, nothing.
Wendy's social interactions in the film, which were dictated by her economic standing, show how badly marginalized after all (excuse me if I'm repeating others' examples here). She was hardly worth the mechanic's time, as he interrupted her at the counter to talk with someone who sounded like a friend of his. She wouldn't have been there if she had a nicer, working car. The worker at the pound snarkily asked "no address?" as she searched for Lucy. Why was she there? Because an overzealous minimum wage-earning teenager (who obviously came from a higher socioeconomic level) got her in trouble for stealing what couldn't have been more than $2 of food and her dog was consequently taken. It's also worth noting that low income citizens are much more likely to end up in jail, like Wendy did, further illustrating some of Reichardt's political commentary in the film.
Although the security guard was a tremendous help to Wendy and a good friend, you can't help but think it was because he felt bad for her. "Nobody uses a pay phone anymore," he told her before letting her use his phone for the first time. That, I felt, was one of the best lines that illustrated the economic divide in the film. I don't think he meant it to be condescending, but it certainly was.
I enjoy discussing politics quite a bit, and as such I thought this was a great film- maybe even my favorite of the entire course so far. I'm disappointed I didn't know about Reichardt sooner.
I really liked your post Joseph. This movie has definitely been a great example of the "One cannot love without money" theme of the class. i founder it interesting in the movie we saw today, Wendy resembles the type of person that Kelly Reichardt talked about in her interview. Specifically the woman who had car issues and Kelly herself had pulled over to the side of the road to help her. Kelly said that even though the woman did not have much money, she didn't seem to fazed or emotionally distraught about her situation, she was methodical in her approach and only concerned herself with what needed to be done next. Nothing else. I feel like Wendy is the same way. She lives her life one day at a time carefully budgeting each penny and only buying necessities.
DeleteThe other example I thought about from the movie that deals with the struggle of love and money is when Wendy decides to call home. It sounded like when she was talking to her brother that she just doesn't have a close relationship with her mother and alludes that Wendy has probably asked for money in the past. Wendy calls in distress and her family is unable to provide for her and money, or love for that matter. Good post!
Wendy and Lucy (2008) for me, was very sad, as I found myself tearing up a little bit towards the end, when Wendy makes that difficult decision to leave Lucy behind. Yet, at the same time, this movie was very beautiful—in a strange way. Reichardt expresses in her BOMB Magazine interview, “the decay is strongest in Wendy and Lucy. Falling into this abyss of hopelessness”. This decay, which resonates with Reichardt as she goes on in the interview to describe her feelings towards society’s indifference, is rather a beautiful operation in the film. Instead of examining it through such a lens, one might consider how Wendy’s final choice is done with greatness, which even in the darkest of moments, a small glimmer of light illuminates.
ReplyDeleteWendy’s mode of decomposition is observable as she goes from sleeping in her car, to sleeping on the dirt. She becomes a part of nature itself in that moment, as we see her detaching from society. Her separation begins with her car breaking down, theft, and of course losing Lucy. The moment that Lucy is gone, Wendy on some level, seems to be invisible to society. Notably, the police officer not responding to Wendy’s plea about Lucy being left behind, and he simply tells her to, “just relax”. Compared to the observable, but neglected operation of decomposing in nature, Wendy embodies that cycle of life. When something decays in nature, for instance, fungi decomposing, one does not want to watch nor wait for fungi to decay. It is not an attractive thing to watch.
Yet, Wendy’s decay is indeed attractive. Unlike nature’s operation of decay, where an object whither and dies alone, Wendy has the Walgreen’s security guard to help her find Lucy. With the real darkness of society, looming over her (the stranger who stumbles upon her) there is still a small source of light where she can get some baring on her life. When we think Wendy is alone in the film’s world, she actually has some help through the security guard. Even with everything appearing to fall apart for her, she discovers for the first time in the film, a sense of maturity, or rather, the opposite of decay—growth.
We discover that through the act of leaving Lucy behind, Wendy makes a very mature realization. One cannot take care of another, if one is incapable of taking care of one’s self. Through this notion, Wendy makes a difficult, but necessary choice, that within itself is a decay of her relationship with Lucy, but it is beautified through Wendy’s growth. The brilliant part of this beauty in the film is that it needs to music for the audience to get this notion. Instead, Reichardt allows the natural sounds that occur to convey beauty in growth. For one last time, we hear an owner and her dog playing catch. We can listen to Wendy’s laugh and Lucy’s bark, and we can hear Wendy’s sadness in her voice as she lets Lucy go—a beautiful decay.
I think that the themes shared in the two Italian neorealist films and Wendy and Lucy are really interesting. It gives us a view that we don't really think about. In all three of these films, the characters are in such dire economic circumstances but also have another living thing that relies solely on them as well. Even though in the Bicycle Thief it is a child and the other two are dogs, I think the premise is generally the same. Children of that age and dogs are both creatures that rely on their parents or owners unconditionally while also relying on them completely for food and shelter.
ReplyDeleteI think that Reichardt does an excellent job in the film, driving this point home. One thing that makes this film do powerful, is just how alone Wendy is. Reichardt mentions it in her interview with Gus Van Sant, Wendy is caught in this spiral that is leading to complete economic devastation. Wendy appears to make a friend in the security guard, he goes out of his way to help her find Lucy, but the scene that really stands out to me is when they part ways and he offers her $7. Obviously this isn't a lot of money at all but it is exactly what Reichardt talks about in the same interview, "That’s the question the mechanic and the security guard face in Wendy and Lucy: how much should each person give to the next person? What’s our responsibility to each other?" The guard makes it seem like he is helping a lot, or at least makes it out that way by instructing Wendy to not the the woman in the car see the money he slips her. We get a feeling that he is really helping her out, but the up close shot on the money tells us otherwise.
Another scene I thought was powerful was when she is caught shoplifting dog food and the young store employee goes out of her way to "make and example out of her". There was some talk (in the readings) that this was a little unrealistic, for a employee of that age working at a grocery store to be that interested in seeking justice but I think that it appears not so much that he really wants justice for the theft but may actually be doing something he thinks makes sense and that is: someone who can't take care of themselves should not be trying to take care of another living thing, like a dog. However, in the scene where Wendy is looking for Lucy behind the store and runs into the kid again, I think that it goes back to that quote again. He may have been responsible for her losing track of her dog, but the way he keeps his eyes down and rushes to his ride's car suggests that he still doesn't feel like he owes her any help.
I can’t help but feel extremely fortunate and a little bit guilty as I sit down to write this assignment in the comfort of my warm apartment which my stable jobs and supportive parents have helped me maintain. Wendy and Lucy was an absolutely fantastic film, and it was a bitter joy to watch. “Reichardt uses realism, the adopted tool of dominant ideologies, to show audiences the overlooked or marginalized: women, poor and working class people, and the homeless.” (Hall, 93) Reichardt is a master at telling stories with purpose, effectiveness, and clarity whilst maintaining just the right amount of ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteIn her 1995 interview with Bomb magazine, Kelly states that “I do like realism in the movies—just not to the point where you aren’t sure why you’re at the movies”. This is something that came across really strongly in both of her films we’ve watched so far - it totally feels like you’re watching someone’s real life unfold before you, but the artful way in which it was shot and paced makes if feel like you’re being told a story. Her ability to balance believability and fantasy is mesmerizing and something more screenwriters and directors should strive for.
As others have already mentioned, there were some pretty clear influences and parallels between the Italian films we watched today and Wendy and Lucy. I really enjoyed how Reichardt incorporated these into her vision; the inspiration was clear, but she definitely made it her own and tailored it to effectively tell her story.
I’d like to point out my two favorite aspects of the film, which were very small details. The first is that the boy who stops her from shoplifting and actively seeks to have her punished for so insignificant a crime was wearing a large, prominently displayed cross necklace. I think that this was a pretty good allusion to the Republican party at the time (though it still applies now). Many conservatives claim to live by the word of Jesus Christ, but only a fraction of them actually do. Christianity is supposed to be a religion about giving and sharing what you can, treating others with kindness and understanding, and believing that your judgement of others isn’t the one that matters. If that asshole of a kid wanted to show how much he understood the teachings of his own religious text, he would have offered to buy the dog food for her, suggested some other way for her to feed Lucy, or at the very least just let her off with a warning. Instead, he made sure her life went from bad to worse even though she was clearly in a tough situation and didn’t deserve such harsh treatment.
The second is how the sound was mixed in the scene with the homeless man. “According to Aguilar, many homeless women ride all night on busses or find twentyfour-hour coffee shops because being a homeless woman is very dangerous.” (Hall, 98) I initially found her camping out in the woods to be peaceful (while the sun was shining), but as soon as night fell I got immediately uncomfortable. I just knew that if anyone who meant to harm her happened across her, she would be caught totally off guard. While the dark, unclear shots certainly added to the feelings of fear generated by the following scene, what sealed it for me was the sound of the train. Wendy wakes up to find that someone, a possibly threatening someone, is rifling through her belongings and talking about how hard his life is. At that point, both my mind and Wendy’s minds were racing, scrambling, trying to assess the situation and find the best way to get out of it unharmed. The sound of the train going by, honking and screeching and clanking, mimicked that perfectly. I couldn’t hear what the man was saying over the sound of the train, and that’s because it didn’t really matter. He was a threat, and the thought process of how to get away from such a threat is always more important than what the threat is doing. Survival always takes priority.
DeleteThis film was beautiful, painful, and had an important message. I felt that the ending, though a tough pill to swallow, was sadly the best outcome for Wendy and Lucy. Wendy needed to get to Alaska. Lucy needed to be taken care of. There was no way both of them could get that. To me, those last few scenes were a perfect summation of the suffering and sacrifices the less fortunate have to go through each and every day.
The ending was a tough pill to swallow. I think the thing I liked about it the most was how we as an audience are expecting this triumphant reunited experience between Wendy and Lucy and that they both would run to each other super happy to finally be together again and then they both would get in the car and go on their happy way to Alaska. That it was I felt was GOING to happen, but Reichardt enjoys taking her viewers on an emotionally journey with lots of twist and turns and you never quite end where you think you are going to.
DeleteThe other example I can think of is in Old Joy, the Mark and Kurt have a lot of chit chat, but they never seem to get in any huge arguments. I kept expecting one of them to lose their temper or have a breakdown and it never happened. I think that Reichardt really likes to keep us always guessing.
Italian neorealist film writer Cesare Zavattini is quoted saying, "I believe in imagination, but I have more faith in reality, in people. I am not interested in prearranged encounters, in the drama of things that happen to come together." The story of Wendy and Lucy was a movie that followed a character for a small portion of her life. Nothing extraordinary happened. There was no beginning, no middle, and no end to the story. The film briefly shed light on what Wendy was trying to accomplish (move to Alaska for work) but we never saw if she was successful. Although Wendy was confronted by difficult circumstances I would hesitate to say there was a climax to the movie. Zavattini's quote perfectly exemplified the story of Wendy and Lucy for me. Much of Wendy's struggle was left up to our imagination because we only saw a small glimpse of her life. What we did see was engaging enough to keep our interest but in the end the film ended without a true resolve, much like real life.
ReplyDeleteI like that Reichardt keeps her stories grounded. I think it makes the film more relatable. I do think that almost all of Wendy's misfortunes happened on her own accord. The whole reason why she lost her dog in the first place was because she was trying to pocket dog food and some fruit (Mind you when she still have $500+). Money aside, the dog was slowing Wendy down. She was spending her who day looking for her dog when she should have been spending it trying to better her own situation. One cannot love without happiness, and one can't love a dog without money.
DeleteAfter reading the Interview done by Zachary Wigon, it really got me thinking about the depth this film really takes on. Kelly Reichardt says in the interview, “It’s just the disdain for poverty, and that assumption that opportunity is lying at our feet, all we have to do is bend over and pick it up. If you’re not getting your slice of the pie, it’s just because you’re obviously too lazy.” Wendy was that person that everyone thought she was just trying to get a hand out. A specific scene is when she is caught stealing the dog food. (Which goes hand in hand with the Italian neorealism film we watched today.) The grocery clerk is very abrupt in making sure she “gets what she deserves” and annoyingly repeating that rules are rules and that we have to follow them. That scene relates to the type of political information she is so easily throwing into the film. This film was created during the Bush administration and after Hurricane Katrina. That makes the film play so much more with the need to make poverty known and the huge emphasis on “how much is that going to cost me.” Throughout the film you really don’t see anyone above middle class, but even then, the middle class somehow looks down upon a young girl trying to find her way. That like Reichardt says, there are opportunities laying at our feet and she is just to lazy to go grab one. Kyle makes a good point as well, “one cannot love without money.” Even the security guard at Walgreens feels the need to help and he gives her money.
ReplyDeleteEveryone loves to believe that people are going to help and that its human nature to helps someone, but the ability to help only happens when it’s convenient for the other person. People like the lady at the animal shelter, the car repairman, etc., with the exception of the security guard at the local Walgreens. It was really refreshing to see the effort Reichardt made is stating that there is hope in all of this mess. Now I know she often leaves the sense of hope an interpretation for the viewers, but in my opinion, the security guard was the little good left in the world. By spreading that love to Wendy it could influence her to spread that same kindness and joy. There was a sense of hope with the interaction between them.
Completely contradicting with the ending because my own “happily ever after” was crushed when Wendy and Lucy didn’t end up back together headed to Alaska. Although, it stays true to the neorealism and pulls right from the ending of The Bicycle Thief, He didn’t end up with a bike and Wendy doesn’t end up with Lucy.
One thing I noticed in this film was the graffiti on the walls. In one scene where Wendy walks by a brown wall it says, "anger". This is after she has been arrested but before she realizes Lucy is gone. Then afterwards when she has looked for Lucy she walks by the same wall and in the same spot it says, "Goner."
ReplyDeleteThere are some foreshadowing qualities to these tags that i thought were fun, but it seemed out of character for Reichardt.
While it may be a coincidence it is fun to relate Wendy to Graffiti. Graffiti shows up on walls and stays there until it is painted over and removed. Graffiti is frowned upon by the majority of society. It is the same with homelessness. Many people disregard the homeless and don't see their value. They want them gone, just to disappear.
That's an interesting observation. I didn't notice that at all. It does seem uncharacteristic of KR to put these subtle foreshadowing background easter eggs in the film. She may have done it because she has stated she's not a fan of symbolism so instead of being ambiguous about the trajectory of the character she blatantly paints it on a wall. Who knows what her reasoning was behind this, but it is fascinating.
DeleteThroughout the three weeks of this class, I’ve learned a lot about film making, considering this is my first film director’s class. From week one to our final week, I have learned to focus on the importance of different camera views/angles, the background music or noise, the meaning of colors, etc. Already in the beginning of Wendy and Lucy there is a close up image of the train wheels in one scene and in another scene there is view of the top of the train on the bottom of the film, there are many different angles of the train as it is slowly moving. What I like about this film and OLD JOY is that Reichardt uses a lot of different views. Another example of a camera view that was intriguing to me in Wendy and Lucy was when the camera was moving from the distance in the woods, as if someone is following Wendy and Lucy. There are two times when Wendy is changing in the bathroom, the first time the camera view is only to her legs, showing how skinny she is. The next camera view of her changing was just of her shirt, which you could see then how skinny her arms were.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the police officer also makes the film interesting, at one point of the film when Wendy is removing all of her belongings in her car, the police officer is watching her do this. Earlier in the film, he tries to help her out with her dog, and then asks again if she has found her dog yet. You get the impression the cop feels somewhat bad for her and he lets her use his cellphone saying that “no one uses payphones anymore.” He lets her use his phone number for the pound. Toward the end of the film he gives Wendy some money to help her out. Wendy doesn’t have anyone except for the dog and you get a sense that he understood where she was coming from.
In OLD JOY, as we discussed in class today, the film is slower paced until the ending of the film where it was suddenly faster paced. In Wendy and Lucy, the location of the film makes the film feel slower but Wendy herself seems to always be in a hurry. For example; she acts like she is wasting time and doesn’t have time with waiting in line for the aluminum cans. Also, the scene when Wendy is in jail, waiting to be released, they redo her finger prints, the camera shows the clock. As she gets off the bus in a hurry to run over to the grocery store, to only see that her dog is missing. She is frustrated with herself because Lucy is gone. Again, when she wants to go see her dog at the pound, she tells the police man that she wants to go see her now instead waiting until the morning and then the cop says that it isn’t open until tomorrow morning. In my opinion, Reichardt wanted to make the film seem slower since Wendy was in a “dead” town as “goner” was graphitized on the wall, you get a sense that this a lost town, as the police officer says people use to work at the mill until it shut down. Overall, though the ending was sad, it was realistic, she knew that Lucy would be in better hands with the foster family.
I like your discussion of how time works in the film. Nice observation!
Delete“The film provides almost no exposition, so its characters exist only in the present” (Leonard Quart). Before you start, yes I’m aware that this was used to describe Meeks Cutoff; that’s the auteur theory at work. I think this line really fits a movie like Wendy and Lucy as well, one that explains very little but still remains engaging enough to keep the audience attentive. Wendy has no back ground and a very unstable future. She reacts to each new, seemingly mundane event with the shock and terror appropriate to someone who has very little and loses it. There is honesty to the film that I found bothersome at times because it fit my own life so well. I think anyone who drives, regardless of whether the car is a tool or your home, knows the terror of an unrealized problem prohibiting them from driving. This is a film of mistakes unlike any of the other films. Instead of someone who is moving upward losing their way (like many of Petzolds films) or someone who is on top falling (like many of Assayas’s) this is simply the story of a Wendy, who is as close to non-existence as possible, losing some of the few things tying her to this world through a series of mistakes that are mostly her own doing. She isn’t necessarily being oppressed by a system. She operates within capitalism only as much as she really needs to. Her destination, a place in Alaska, is more of a distant hope than a sure-fire solution to her problems. She loses her dog because she tries to cheat someone else. She loses her car because she decided to postpone fixing something simple for too long. In the end the only lesson she learns is that she has to worry about herself and her problems more and doesn’t have time, money, or energy to take care of Lucy. The ending was shocking to me because it didn’t follow either route that I had imagined possible. Instead, it offers a simple human moment of self-realization that very few films ever reach.
ReplyDeleteI felt the exact same way about KR's approach to telling Wendy's story. We were dropped into her story, there really wasn't a beginning, middle, or end. The struggles she endured were mostly caused by her own doing or lack of action. I related this back to KR's quote in the interview we watched in class where KR said she "saw a woman on the side of the road with car problems. The woman was not panicked. The only thing on her mind was finding a car jack. Then a spare time. Then the next thing. It was as if she viewed life as a checklist." (paraphrased). KR said this was her inspiration for the character Wendy and I could see Michelle Williams' motivations for the character through the story of the woman KR spoke of.
DeleteOpening class with scenes from The Bicycle Thief really set us up for the structure of Wendy and Lucy. They both had a large statement of the socio-economic status of the working poor/homeless but both from such very different time frames and contexts. Director Kelly Reichardt talks of the influence Italian Neorealism had on the film and how it’s even more relevant today in America than ever before. She says, with the “lack of education, lack of social skills, lack of a financial net - can you get a toehold into the next rung on the ladder? Not even to get to the middle class - can you get anywhere? And that was what we started out with.”
ReplyDeleteIn both stories, Antonio and Wendy are at the bottom of their class structures with only one person on their side. Eventually they are alienated by that person in one way or another. The way Wendy loses her car is parallel to Antonio losing the bike and that’s the one thing that can get them to their destination. Other than the plot similarities, Di Sica and Reichardt both capture the realism of their surroundings with lots of b-roll or scenery footage to really put you in the setting.
I think Reichardt’s view of the class systems in America are cynical but hold much truth. The young clerk that works at the grocery store and turns Wendy in explains to her boss that “The rules apply to everyone equally. If a person can’t afford dog food then they shouldn’t have a dog.” It seems disheartening to think that a young teenager would turn in a homeless woman who wasn’t even stealing food for herself, she had a couple of cheap cans of dog food. I felt his stubbornness didn’t fit, it seemed like he was adamant that she be reprimanded for her actions when he is at an age that mistakes are a part of growing up. Another statement on the cycle of poverty is from the security guard when he says “You can’t get an address without an address, you can’t get a job without a job - it’s all fixed.” This is the reality of the American dream that Reichardt so perfectly depicts. When you are poor or born into poverty, you’re treated as if it were a choice. However, not once does Wendy try to explain her situation to anyone, she never asks for help or pity, she only says “I’m passing through.” I saw this phrasing as the only hope that Wendy could still hold on to - that all of this was temporary and that she wasn’t to her destination yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete