MovieChat Forums > Inside Llewyn Davis (2014) Discussion > REAL EXPLANATION OF THE FILM

REAL EXPLANATION OF THE FILM

posted 11 years ago by Smurgledorf
85 replies | jump to latest

People really haven't grasped what this movie was about. I'll explain.

The movie is about how it feels to be an artist struggling to make "real" art (as opposed to something that he thinks he can sell) with absolutely no idea whether his work will ever be appreciated or translate into a living. Meanwhile success is actually just around the corner, and all his aimless behavior will turn out, in retrospect, to have been heroic struggling against the odds to make something genuine.

The point of the flashback at the end is that Bob Dylan playing at the Gaslight (which wasn't revealed at the start) completely changes how all the other scenes in the film must be understood. Once Dylan became successful in real life, the entire folk scene in NYC got a huge amount of attention. Llewyn might or might not become super-sucessful, but he'd at least be able to make a good living and be lifted out of purgatory. We can safely assume this because the story is actually based on a memoir by Dave Van Ronk, who did indeed achieve subsequent success - the title is a reference to his 1963 album "Inside Dave Van Ronk".

A few notes on specific scenes from the film:

- If Dylan was already big, the Record Exec played by F Murray Abraham would NOT have concluded that he "couldn't see any money here" after hearing him play ultra-serious folk. The ownership of his back catalog would be contested and he would immediately be offered an advance on future recordings, because Bob Dylan would have proved that something like that can translate for a larger audience.

- If Llewyn had succeeded in getting on a ship of the merchant navy, he'd have missed out on the coming folk resurgence and all his struggles would have been for nothing.

- The novelty song about Kennedy sending people into outer space may or may not be a hit, and we're supposed to assume Llewyn refusing royalties is a mistake at the time of the scene - but when "serious" folk music becomes suddenly commercial, having it on his resume would make him look like a for-hire hack and ruin his ability to sell himself as a real artist. Whether a hit or not, Kennedy is going to be assassinated in less than two years and it will seem tasteless and be utterly forgotten.

- Llewyn is NOT as flawed and misguided as he often appears. The reason he's depicted as such is because he actually buys the perception of Jean that he's an a-hole, even though he's totally committed in his desire to make something meaningful when most around him are not. He's sometimes obnoxious, but he also blithely pays for ALL of Jean's abortion (and has done so before with a previous girlfriend) even though she would almost certainly be at least as able to pay for half given that unlike him, she's not literally homeless.

- The flashback also reveals that the man in the bar DID have sex with Jean, which means that Jean is hardly a saint herself, given that she has apparently cheated on her boyfriend with multiple partners. Yet she is by far the most critical of Llewyn in the film - which calls the whole "Llewyn is an a-hole" premise into question: Llewyn actually cares that he lost the cat - he goes to see his dad and doesn't get angry when he reacts to hearing his music by soiling himself. He's not an *beep* at all, he's just not following the same principles as everyone else because he has a Calling that's more important to him than "just existing".

Hope this helps. I'd appreciate bumping, too many people seem to have not grasped the internal logic of this movie and are underrating it as a result, much like they did with A Serious Man. Like that film, it's seem more or less flawless to me, you just need to understand what it's doing.

[–] Ambrosia-I 11 years ago

Thanks, Smurgledorf, I found your take on the film and Llewyn very interesting. I was a bit confused that the film ended where it began in the folk club because, to me, the story seemed linear and I remember Llewyn saying to the club owner "sorry about last night" and then, at the end, he was in the club on the night before the beginning of the film. I think I definitely need to see this film again because the flashback didn't appear like a flashback to me and I must have, very literally, lost the plot (as Llewyn did in a different way).

As for him paying for Jean's abortion, I took it that he didn't know about her sleeping with other men until the club owner mentioned that he'd slept with her and I understood that to be after he'd found the money to pay for it by recording "Hey, Mr Kennedy". Llewyn wasn't a complete ass_hole, but it becomes clear that he didn't go with the other girlfriend to have the abortion or even stick around long enough to find out that she didn't go through with it so he's no saint in that respect. But, of course, neither is Jean.

Regarding the cat(s), yes, he did care enough to try and return the cat to its owners and did his best to look after it, but then he does leave the second cat in the car with a man who might possibly die from the cold. I thought that was completely wrong of him. As for running over the cat while driving and letting it limp off into the woods, I don't know if that really happened or if it was some kind of awful waking dream brought on by abandoning the cat and the man. I realise it does say something about me that I was more worried about the cat than the man!

[–] Smurgledorf 11 years ago

I'm going to see the movie again myself, apparently others didn't see it as a flashback either. I feel the need to check a few of the details (like, tv tropes appears to think that it's revealed Jean had slept with the man in the bar to get Llewyn the gig, but if that was an act of pure self-sacrifice it doesn't really tally with her attitude to Llewyn for most of the rest of the film). All the same it doesn't change the purpose of Bob Dylan's appearance: given that the story was inspired by Dave Van Ronk's actual memoir it clearly wasn't meant to imply Llewyn is even more of a loser in light of another's coming success.

[–] Ambrosia-I 11 years ago

It seems clear that Dylan is about to change everything and, if I remember correctly, doesn't Llewyn move towards the stage in rapt attention when Dylan is playing? I was thinking that the older female folk singer that he heckles could be considered as representing the conservative, safe and rather boring past of folk music, whilst Dylan is the exciting future and Llewyn despises the first and recognises the genius of the second.

[–] BooksArsenal 11 years ago

I realise it does say something about me that I was more worried about the cat than the man!

Hey, you're not alone -- so was I!

[–] alliekat9090 11 years ago

yeah me three.

[–] scrapmetal7 10 years ago

He could not have taken the cat with him. He couldn't carry his stuff and the cat through a snow storm. Even if he had the 3rd and 4th arms it would have required, the cat would have leapt from his arms the first chance it got and then would have been lost in the snow by a highway, where it had no chance to live. The cat was safer staying in the car.

[–] mj_basketball_23 9 years ago

I was a bit confused that the film ended where it began

I think that that weights in to the Odysseus story, the journey home, the complete circle. I think that he realised in the end that he was indeed 'living' and not 'existing' in his own messy way and the presence of Dylan in the bar was an optimistic note to Llewyun's future journey
As for the cat, I think it eventually symbolises Llewyin himself. Cats are stubborn animals, they always want to get what they want, but in their own selfish way. And that's what the character was doing in this story. And, when we see things in this light, the wounded cat makes sense, right?

[–] dark_frances 11 years ago

Bob Dylan playing at the Gaslight (which wasn't revealed at the start)

Actually it was, except we don't hear it as clearly as in the end, and we don't see Dylan. If you rewatch the movie you hear Dylan's song in the background when Llewyn goes outside and meets the stranger. Unless you meant that it wasn't made clear in the beginning, which it wasn't.

However, first of all Dylan couldn't have been famous, because he was playing at the Gaslight. Second, since Dylan playing after Llewyn had also happened the first time, it means that none of the events would be any different - F Murray Abraham had rejected Llewyn's request the first time and he'd also reject it the second time, and I didn't see any hint that serious folk music would become suddenly commercial - eventually, maybe, but not suddenly.

I totally agree about Llewyn not being a complete *beep* though. He does seem to despise people who make sacrifices for stability, although he does rely on them, which is very not nice; but he is also plagued by a lot of bad luck, and many unpleasant things happen to him in spite of his best intentions (such as the story of the first cat). And the relationship between him and Jean is definitely more complex than nice-she / bad-he, for instance it seems that there was a lot of frustration between the two, particularly from her, who may have had serious feelings about him but couldn't build a relationship with the guy because of his mindless attitude. Which frustration she translated into constant abuse. Which abuse may indeed, like you say, have influenced some of the viewer's attitude about Llewyn himself (I was initially more angry with her, until I read of the frustration interpretation on this forum, which made wonderful sense).

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

[–] Smurgledorf 11 years ago

since Dylan playing after Llewyn had also happened the first time, it means that none of the events would be any different - F Murray Abraham had rejected Llewyn's request the first time and he'd also reject it the second time, and I didn't see any hint that serious folk music would become suddenly commercial

I did actually screw up the timeline: the bookending scene does happen chronologically at the end of the story as Ambrosia said.

Further clarification is possible: Dylan wasn't famous when he was playing that gig at the Gaslight, but the point is that he will be. Jean says that the New York Times was going to be at the gig. The implication is that this is the gig where Dylan gets his first major write-up - and we can assume Llewyn will also be mentioned with him. It is his big break and he doesn't yet know it as the movie ends.

He does seem to despise people who make sacrifices for stability, although he does rely on them, which is very not nice

He acts out, but I think that was supposed to be taken more as a reflection of how miserable his situation is. I didn't get the impression that he wanted to be in the position of sleeping on everyone's couches, and that he resents being reliant on the charity of others. The trouble is that, to him, getting a job would mean sacrificing his ability to further his artistic ambitions.

[–] matildac-1 11 years ago

I think that Smurledorf is right that the "implication is that this is the gig where Dylan gets his first major write-up." Matter of fact, I bet the Coens are alluding to Robert Shelton's rapturous NY times review of Dylan's 1961 appearance at Gerdes Folk City.

But rather than the gig also being Lleyn's "big break", I'd argue that it's the another example of Davis' poisonous luck. The implication to me is that Dylan's performance is so "bursting with talent" (to quote from Shelton's original rave) that there will be no mention of Lleyn's set in the Times. For a struggling musician that's much worse then getting beaten up in an alley.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lotusgdess-965-767426 10 years ago

I agree with matildac's take on the scene where Dylan is playing at the Gaslight. I think Llewyn is a moderately talented folk singer who really was never going to bring anything fresh and inventive to the genre. That his aspirations far outweighed his talent and that he was kind of embittered about it. I didn't like the way he treated most other characters in the film (not that there were many characters one could really like in this film). I think Llewyn Davis is just another moderately talented singer in a sea of moderately talented singers of the era and he would have been totally forgotten on a night when Bob Dylan was on the same stage. I especially didn't appreciate him looking down his nose at other people who were providing him food and shelter.

[–] johnston.scot 11 years ago

Where to start?

Folk was just about starting its downward slope of popularity and relevance. It would be more accurate to say that Dylan killed the folk scene (though not completely until a few years later). He definitely killed the old-school traditionalists like Llewyn. Llewyn never plays an original song (except the Kennedy one, which Jimmy wrote). Dylan played original material from the beginning and (after his first album) recorded almost entirely original material. Dylan and Llewyn are also stylistically very different. Rock subsumed folk completely within a few years, and the savvy folkies turned into the Byrds, the Mamas and Papas, Simon and Garfunkel, etc. It seems highly unlikely that Llewyn would (or would even be able to) follow that path. His sort of music had its flowering before the time of the movie ("Tom Dooley," e.g., a hit in 1958).

Who were the successful "serious" folkies other than Dylan? I suppose Joan Baez. Pete Seeger, sort of, but he was popular well before 1961. Phil Ochs? Didn't work out so well, and he was at least as talented as Llewyn, though more akin to Dylan in the fact he played original songs, many of which were in the "protest" vein. I'll assume the OP wouldn't consider Peter, Paul & Mary to be serious folkies. Their success (and the fact Llewyn passed on being a part of it in the movie) is contrary to the OP's premise.

Llewyn repeatedly announces that playing and singing is "how he makes his living." He's apparently broken off from the amateur folk scene: he once went to hootenannies, but hasn't in over two years. He's not a guy who loves folk music so much he has to play it, he's a guy who's trying to make money at it.

The F. Murray Abraham character (Bud Grossman) isn't a record-company executive, he's a club owner. It's suggested that he's a manager as well. He's a barely-modified version of Albert Grossman, who: owned a club in Chicago name the "Gate of Horn" (same name as the club in the movie), and put together Peter, Paul & Mary in 1961 (referenced in the movie). He also managed ... Bob Dylan. And Janis Joplin, Phil Ochs, Odetta and various other "serious" folkies (as well as some less serious ones). He had a keen eye indeed. The character in the movie has a slightly different name, but there's nothing in the movie that indicates he isn't a sharp judge of performers.

If Llewyn was going to be a big success after 1961, why wasn't he succeeding in 1961 (or 1959, or 1960)? The notion the Bob Dylan opened some sort of door that numerous performers then rushed through doesn't fit reality. There was a door open from the late '40s throughout the '50s. Numerous people playing traditional folk akin to Llewyn's repertoire walked through it: Pete Seeger, the Kingston Trio, the Weavers, Woody Guthrie. Dave Van Ronk was successful enough in 1961 to pay the rent, which Llewyn obviously isn't. Joan Baez was successful in 1960. For that matter: why did Bob Dylan become an immediate success in 1961, getting a rave review in The New York Times within months of setting foot in New York, while Llewyn has been plugging away without success for years?

Dave Van Ronk never achieved much success, though probably more than Llewyn is likely to achieve. For that matter, Jim and Jean (who were real people) were about as successful as Van Ronk. Despite the fact that some of the incidents in the movie are lifted from Van Ronk's life (via the book "The Mayor of MacDougal Street"), and the albums have the same name, Davis and Van Ronk are different in numerous other, and pretty fundamental, ways: their singing style is different; their personalities are about opposite; they have no physical similarities other than the beard; Van Ronk's biggest interest was blues, while Llewyn's music could scarcely be less blues-oriented; Van Ronk was married in the period, which seems a highly unlikely fate for Llewyn anytime soon; Van Ronk didn't know how to drive; etc.

I think your interpretation is driven more by what you want the movie to be saying than by what's actually in the movie.

[–] superduperspit 11 years ago

I agree that it's not spelled out Llewyn will benefit from Dylan. Llewyn is not as great an artist as he acts like, both due to not being a songwriter and not having an original voice or aesthetic look. He's a good folk singer who blends with many others and cannot connect or resonate emotionally enough to hit the next level. That's why F. Murray says no. Llewyn is too stubborn to learn from what makes others successful, or to bend in a way like joining the trio. He looks down at people like Jim and his Kennedy song. He considers himself too good for it. These are all things that will doom him. When Dylan takes folk in a new direction Llewyn likely doesn't change his act at all.

[–] Smurgledorf 11 years ago

I think your interpretation is driven more by what you want the movie to be saying than by what's actually in the movie.

This could be fair. I actually didn't realize that the songs Davis plays were not originals. Had that been made clear it would have changed my perception of the story: artists who write their own material and do it well are always going to have a leg up on people who just do covers.

But if the intent was to make him seem like a pompous hack with delusions of grandeur, it did it in a very counter-intuitive way.

[–] Dondi0 11 years ago

...artists who write their own material and do it well are always going to have a leg up on people who just do covers.

Yeah, like that no-mark Elvis Presley cat...

The rules are there ain't no rules: talented/untalented, write your own or cover someone else's...it don't matter. Timing, Marketing ju-ju, the whims of the great unwashed and, above all, luck are the deciding factors in who breaks the big-time in their own lifetime.

Them's, as they say, are the breaks.

[–] laughtermadefat 10 years ago

Spoken like a true loser.

[–] Dondi0 10 years ago

hahaha - check out the Captain of Industry and Originality.
What on earth are you on about?

[–] laughtermadefat 10 years ago

If life hasn't gotten it through your thick-head yet, I have little chance of doing so now...

[–] Dondi0 10 years ago

So you don't know either then?

[–] laughtermadefat 10 years ago

This isn't my first day of webbing, boy

I will not be baited

I can tell you why I KNOW your worldview is inferior, but it would be a kind gesture. And I'm not feeling charitable.

[–] Dondi0 10 years ago

This isn't my first day of webbing, boy

hahaha - Jesus wept! You are truly a mighty bell-end.
It's ok to admit that you don't know what you're talking about y'know.
(well, strictly speaking it's not...but you seem like you need a bit of a break)

[–] NotASpeckOfCereal 9 years ago

Roland Turner, is that you?

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

[–] joekiddlouischama 9 years ago

But if the intent was to make him seem like a pompous hack with delusions of grandeur, it did it in a very counter-intuitive way.

How so? Inside Llewyn Davis is a black comedy and a satire that undermines and pokes fun at its protagonist as much as anyone else.

[–] joekiddlouischama 9 years ago

artists who write their own material and do it well are always going to have a leg up on people who just do covers.

... not necessarily true at all. Most of the biggest pop stars throughout history have not written, or have only occasionally written, their own material.

[–] kay_rock 11 years ago

Who were the successful "serious" folkies other than Dylan? I suppose Joan Baez. Pete Seeger, sort of,...

Gordon Lightfoot

-----------------
Movies are IQ tests. The IMDB boards are each person's opportunity to broadcast their score.

[–] ossyguy 11 years ago

Who did Dylan influence that acknowledge that influence as positive on their successful career?
Who didn't?
Longer list.....?

Old Bee Party V Swirled

[–] nsnces 11 years ago

Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young , etc., etc.

[–] ossyguy 11 years ago

The Beatles, Bobby Darin, The Rolling Stones, Sonny and Cher, The Doors, to stretch things a bit. (Everyone at Woodstock to be obvious)
Once the idea of beat poetry and folk/rock was lit up it went contagion.
Any lyric that had a hint of it could be sourced back to those Early Dylan songs.
However having had a good look at Llewyn and a hint at his future.
He just might have missed the boat.

Old Bee Party V Swirled

[–] zolazona 11 years ago

"Who were the successful "serious" folkies other than Dylan? I suppose Joan Baez. Pete Seeger, sort of, but he was popular well before 1961."

Dylan was in a whole different category to about, well...anyone. There were many folk singers who had as much success as the Motown/surfer groups and many of the pop singers of the day. They made money and they were BIG to certain people (!)

Odetta
Tom Paxton
Burl Ives
Judy Collins
The Clancy Brothers
Richie Havens
Tim Hardin
Carolyn Hester
Buffy Sainte-Marie
Glenn Yarbourough

I didn't list all the trios as I didn't buy any of their albums.
The think the British Invasion had more to do with folk rock being thrown to the sidelines than any one artist.

I have to throw in Tim Buckley as a mid 60's *folk* rocker who was popular in California. Well, he was folk until he moved onto other things, but I liked his folk music the most.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMTEtDBHGY4

[–] joekiddlouischama 9 years ago

Folk was just about starting its downward slope of popularity and relevance. It would be more accurate to say that Dylan killed the folk scene (though not completely until a few years later). He definitely killed the old-school traditionalists like Llewyn. Llewyn never plays an original song (except the Kennedy one, which Jimmy wrote). Dylan played original material from the beginning and (after his first album) recorded almost entirely original material. Dylan and Llewyn are also stylistically very different. Rock subsumed folk completely within a few years, and the savvy folkies turned into the Byrds, the Mamas and Papas, Simon and Garfunkel, etc. It seems highly unlikely that Llewyn would (or would even be able to) follow that path. His sort of music had its flowering before the time of the movie ("Tom Dooley," e.g., a hit in 1958).

Thank you. Dylan did not turn folk into a commercially explosive and viable genre. Rather, his influence—and, eventually, his electrification—injected folk sensibilities, both personal and political, into the more commercial rock universe, thus rendering traditional folk obsolete by the mid-to-late sixties. By then, one could receive a more political or personal message through electrified rock-and-roll while also "getting your kicks," "rocking out," dancing, or whatever. Other folk performers followed Dylan's lead, or that of Simon and Garfunkel, the Mamas and the Papas, and some others, by incorporating electric instrumentation and fusing their folk sensibilities with rock aesthetics, or established rockers such as The Beatles received inspiration from Dylan and created more intimate variations of their music. Doubtlessly, Llewyn Davis and his monotonous singing style would not have succeeded within this new competitive sphere.

Davis' failure to achieve success has nothing to do with Dylan. He fails because he is not a very good singer and, unlike Dylan, he does not write fresh, original, cutting edge material.

[–] TravelTrousers 11 years ago

The flashback also reveals that the man in the bar DID have sex with Jean, which means that Jean is hardly a saint herself, given that she has apparently cheated on her boyfriend with multiple partners.

I saw it that she slept with the club owner to get Llewyn on the bill... she was already pregnant so there was little danger there, and she knew the times would be there and that could be his big break...

If he was successful maybe he would stop *beep* us his (and her) life.

www.traveltrousers.com

[–] nystulc 11 years ago

> I saw it that she slept with the club owner to get Llewyn on the bill...
> she was already pregnant so there was little danger there, and she knew
> the times would be there and that could be his big break...

Well ... either that or she never slept with him at all, and Pappi was just talking trash to prove his manhood after he began to feel embarrassed by his own gay jokes. He admitted only a few days earlier that he had not (yet) slept with her, and that the reason she gets gigs is because she and Jim bring in the crowds. Hence, if he slept with her at all, it must have been recently, and for another reason.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

It's not a flashback at the end; it's clearly a flashforward at the beginning.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] dommomoore 11 years ago

Great stuff. Good critical read of the movie.

[–] BooksArsenal 11 years ago

Great stuff. Good critical read of the movie.

Hear, hear!

Excellent analysis, Smurgledorf!

[–] lurchingadams25 11 years ago

I can totally understand someone coming up with an interpretation of a film like Upstream Colour, or A Field in England, as these films are willingly ambiguous and are made to have multiple readings. This film is not one of those.

You want meaning? It's just the portrait of a guy living in the music scene- there are far more people like Llewyn in the world than there are Bob Dylan's, people who play music, bust a nut trying to get the next paid gig, and generally being looked over.

This is just a guy who won't have a big break. He's like a million other people out there who have a dream and will hump it until they can't anymore. They'll be remembered by a few people who were around at that time, but, on the whole, they'll die unknown, living in the peripherals of fame of fortune.

(Saying that, the *beep* cat was called Ulysses, who just spent a *beep* long time trying to get home- representing journeys, YAWN! Pretension is a bitch, and the Cohens love sticking a classical reference in when they can- it's just a joke in this film, nothing more.)

[–] Raging_Bull27 11 years ago

I'am really confused maybe someone can talk some sense to me. Specifically I'm confused about the timeline and where it starts and end and what the flashback is. It is set up to make us think we are revisiting the beginning when he is in the Gormine's apartment but instead while leaving he stops the cat from escaping?

The more I think about it the more I confuse myself I just have to watch it again or something

Dear Diary.... JACKPOT

[–] johnston.scot 11 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2042568/board/thread/225117709

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

There is no "change" with the cat in the end of the film. LD blocks the cat before it can get out, but this is not a nifty/deep change from the scene at the beginning when the cat escapes.

At the beginning, the cat escapes the morning AFTER he gets beaten up out the back of the club. At the end, he blocks the cat's escape BEFORE he gets to the club (where later, he is beaten up).

'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.

[–] Merely 11 years ago

Except for the part in the bar when Jean is performing and the owner says to Llewyn that he would LIKE to have sex with her.

Later it is revealed he HAS had sex with her when he claims to Llewyn that is how one gets to perform there.

My understanding of that means she slept with the owner to get Llewyn the gig there, when the Times would be present, as she stated, so he could get his big break.