![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 30th, 2019 01:33 pmSince I'm thinking about Inside Llewyn Davis again (I watched it recently for the… seventh time, maybe?), I feel like writing another pedantic rant that's been simmering in me for a couple years. Although it's not really a "rant" per se, or at least I feel uncomfortable describing it as such. Honestly I'm hesitant to even write this out but ehhhhhhhhh fuck it. It's about a certain subtle topic touched on in the film, and also about the trouble with adapting a person's life story to film. Kind of two rants in one, actually.
I'd put this under a cut but ever since I switched to beta mode, I have no idea how to utilize the HTML. So it goes. And so, here goes:
Inside Llewyn Davis is a film about a folk singer, inspired by/loosely based on the life of a real folk singer named Dave Van Ronk, who lived in Greenwich Village when it was the hotbed of folk music in the 1960's, all the way up to his death in 2002. An account of his life was published in 2005, entitled The Mayor of MacDougal Street. This book was written by folk historian and close friend of Van Ronk's, Elijah Wald, based heavily on DVR's own notes for a memoir and various other first person sources. (To be clear, it is written in the form of a memoir by Dave Van Ronk, although Elijah Wald was the one who strung all the bits and pieces together.) It is also clearly the primary source for the Coen Brothers' script, but we'll get into specific examples later.
I loved The Mayor of MacDougal Street when I read it, and found only one disappointing factor, an important part of DVR's life that was never so much as mentioned in the book- his involvement in the Stonewall riots of 1969. I doubt I need to explain what happened at Stonewall, but the short version is, a police raid against patrons of the Stonewall Inn (a gay bar in Greenwich Village) was the instigator for America's modern day LGBT pride movement. (I feel now it's important to put the disclaimer: I'm a straight woman, if I say anything that might be inaccurate or offensive in this post I apologize, feel free to call me out on it.) Dave Van Ronk was one of the first people arrested on that night for opposing the police and aiding the patrons at Stonewall. Ever since I read The Mayor of MacDougal Street, I have been dying to know more about DVR’s involvement in the riots that night, and for a long time I could only find two sources online that go into detail about it. A contemporary-to-the-time source states that he was dining in the area when the riot disrupted him and he came by to see what was going on (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/voice_19690703_truscott.html CW for police brutality and a deeply uncomfortable amount of casual slurs). Another such source describes his violent, "sassy" behavior in injuring a policeman with a thrown object and then back-talking him about it (https://www.villagevoice.com/2015/06/26/full-moon-over-the-stonewall-howard-smiths-account-of-the-stonewall-riots/ CW for more of the same, also side note: Dave Van Ronk is referred to as DAN Van Ronk, which deserves a [sic].) Van Ronk was charged, pled guilty to a lesser offense, and... that was, for a while, all I knew. What particularly intrigued me was the fact that DVR apparently joined the riots despite being an innocent bystander. Known as a left-wing anarchist, I figured he might have assisted the rioters due to his distaste for police brutality (and probably the police as a whole). Or was he there as a patron of Stonewall himself? There is little indication as to Van Ronk's sexuality, besides the fact that he was married twice to different women. It always feels disrespectful to me to speculate on a public figure's personal matters, especially when said public figure is now deceased, which is why I've been so hesitant to make this post. But then I discovered another source which tells the story in DVR’s own words, and clears up any lingering questions I may have had. As related in the book Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution by David Carter, Dave Van Ronk was celebrating his birthday at his favorite bar, two doors down from Stonewall, when the riots broke out. (Side note: DVR’s birthday is June 30th, and the riots began on June 28th, which happens to be my own birthday.) In Van Ronk’s own words: “I have been involved in antiwar demonstrations where the police descended on us like armed locusts. What I saw was yet another example of police arrogance and corruption. As far as I was concerned, anybody who’d stand against the cops was all right with me, and that’s why I stayed. The cops had made themselves fairly unpopular over the years with tear gas, with dogs. Every time you turned around the cops were pulling some outrage or another. I reached into my pocket and tossed a quarter or just some pennies and around that time the heavy artillery cut in. I assume that some of the street people in the park had decided to join the fray because beer cans started flying above our heads.”
What I find interesting is that DVR doesn’t admit to having thrown anything more than a couple coins (which the Stonewall patrons were throwing to symbolically pay off the cops), but other sources state that the object he threw caused serious damage to the policeman he hit. However, I tend to believe DVR when he claims he only threw a few coins, as the second account above notes that the policeman’s injury “looks a lot more serious than it really is” and Van Ronk is quoted as saying at the scene that he only threw a few coins (the “sassiness”/”snideness” could be a mistaken perception from a biased policeman). He clearly pled guilty to a lesser offense in order to preserve his career, but either way, he did participate in the riots and ended up being arrested. David Carter in his book characterizes Van Ronk as “heterosexual” and “having never thought much about gay rights,” but I feel that shouldn’t take away from his involvement. He took a look at the unjust, unethical actions from the police, and saw them as the enemy they were.
So that brings me to the story of Inside Llewyn Davis, which also indulges in much speculation- but in this case, the speculation is called "headcanon," and being a work of fiction, I feel much more comfortable talking about it (although the validity of this post might have just gone down the drain, admitting that I'm basing my point mostly off headcanons). Certain subtext in Inside Llewyn Davis has not gone unnoticed- namely, vague hints that the title character is bisexual (I'm saying bi, not gay, because he is shown to have had relationships with at least two women in the past and seems to have had genuine feelings for them. I also want to point out that much of this story, especially when it comes to the backstory and relationships established between characters, relies on "show don't tell," so that's why I'll frequently say "seems like" or anything along those lines). Now, I haven't seen a single review of the film that ever pointed this out, but here is a gif compilation of every moment in the movie that suggests this: https://cardamomblessing.tumblr.com/post/153545050752/llewyn-davis-is-bisexual-and-mike-is-his-dead Quick recap for anyone unwilling to click the link: Llewyn Davis used to have a singing partner, Mike Timlin, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge an indeterminate, but suggested to be recent amount of time before the movie starts. Llewyn is shown to be grieving Mike- although he never mentions him unless prompted, he grows upset when someone sings Mike's vocal part when he's trying to perform one of the songs they did together, "Dink's Song."The version of "Dink's Song" that appears on the soundtrack, supposedly recorded by Timlin & Davis (as Marcus Mumford & Oscar Isaac), includes the unaltered line "I had a man who was long and tall." Llewyn refers to Mike as his "partner" on numerous occasions- whether he means as a singing partner, or a romantic partner, is unclear. At one point, Llewyn is asked point-blank if he is "queer," and he uncomfortably redirects the conversation. Later in the movie, a sleazy club owner makes an impolite and slightly homophobic comment, as Llewyn responds in a monotone that sounds (to me) like he's at the end of his rope and just wants the guy to shut up. Outside of these instances, nothing is ever stated about Llewyn Davis' sexuality. Neither of the Coen Brothers have ever mentioned it, as far as I know, nor has Oscar Isaac, the man who plays the role of Llewyn Davis. It's very much a "read between the lines" type thing- my clueless teenage self didn't even notice any of this the first time I saw the movie.
Soooooooooooooo now we get to the thing that irks me- and now that I've written all this out, it seems very much like an "old man yells at cloud" type deal to call this a "rant." But, I just wanted to say. I have seen the accusation against Inside Llewyn Davis, calling out the Coen Brothers for not making Llewyn's implied sexuality more explicit. The reasoning behind this, is that Dave Van Ronk was present at the Stonewall riots and it is doing his memory a disservice. Honestly, I can't help but feel that this accusation is conflating two things that are not necessarily related. DVR didn’t seem to identify as queer (as far as we know), and he didn’t have any specific feelings towards the gay rights movement- his beef was mostly with police brutality. Of course he did prove himself to be an ally for joining the riots. But his presence at Stonewall that night, and his participation in the riots, is not sufficient justification for the lack of representation in Inside Llewyn Davis. (Honestly, I shouldn’t be too hard on those who level this criticism, because it took me a bit of googling and a trip to the library to even unearth all the details about DVR at Stonewall. It’s easy to miss the full context, and besides, I’ve already mentioned my privilege- this might be valid justification and I don’t understand it due to that.) Don’t get me wrong, though- I absolutely feel that Llewyn should have been explicitly presented as bi. If you ask me, the story hardly makes sense without it, and of course I'm all for dragging the Coen Brothers anyway (but we won't get into that). Now, this might seem hypocritical since I’m always going on about platonic relationships and how interpreting one as a romantic relationship is cheapening it, but honestly… the depth of Llewyn’s grief, which colors the entire movie, indicates a relationship close enough to be romantic. I feel like it’s easy to miss the first time the movie is viewed (and that’s exactly why we need it to be explicit), but Llewyn’s depression isn’t ordinary depression. It stems from his grief over Mike’s death. This YouTube analysis hits the nail on the head describing Llewyn’s depression, saying how music used to be something he enjoyed, but now he no longer enjoys it and is still trying to make a go of it because he can’t see himself doing anything else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnbv67k_BVk But it completely fails to mention what can easily be inferred- that music hasn’t felt the same since losing Mike. Mike and Llewyn were singing partners, their harmonies wrapping around each other like a pair of arms locked in embrace. Listening to the Macus Mumford & Oscar Isaac version of “Dink’s Song,” and then listening to Oscar Isaac’s solo version of “Dink’s Song,” gave me a profound emotional reaction the first time I heard the soundtrack album, because I could FEEL that loss. This is highlighted in the film when a music business executive tells Llewyn that he’s “no front guy” and then, upong hearing that Llewyn used to have a partner, advises him to “get back together” (not knowing that Mike committed suicide). They were partners, two halves of a whole, and now one half is gone. It’s just so easy to draw romantic parallels. I don’t expect to be taken too seriously on this because like I said, it’s all based on headcanons, but seriously, it just makes the movie’s narrative work so much better for me, and even makes Llewyn a more sympathetic, relatable character. Okay. Now that I've got that off my chest, that leads into a different issue I have with the movie- the totally apolitical outlook that it gives off.
We all know, as it's been stated and repeated many times, that art is not created in a vacuum. All art is political in some way, or at least it should be. The Coens, however, seem to do their damnedest in their movies not to take any sort of stance. Some might find this relieving, as they don't want to be "lectured" when they watch a movie, but I find that this only displays their privilege. They can afford to step out and not present any political opinions, because it doesn't affect them. I always got that feeling when I watched their movies, but it wasn't until recently that it really hit me how bizarre the lack of political opinions is in this movie particularly. The folk revival of the 50's and 60's had many ties to political movements. In his own memoir, Dave Van Ronk describes in detail his connection to far-left-leaning movements and differentiates his politics as more radical than a liberal Democrat’s. His politics even come up as a reason why he ended up pursuing music instead of shipping out on the Merchant Marine, as his sea papers had been lost and he was afraid that the government wouldn’t issue new papers to someone like him, as they were more likely to throw him in jail. Other folk singers of the time are noted to have either been involved in anarchist or communist politics, such as Pete Seeger; participated in non-violent protest and civil disobedience, such as Joan Baez; or written protest songs demanding social change, such as Bob Dylan. Many have done all three. When I personally think of folk music, I think of protest songs first, and the preservation of older music second. However, there’s no trace of protest or controversial politics at all in Inside Llewyn Davis, except for a few lines, played for laughs, where a member of the Merchant Marine mistakes Llewyn for a communist, and the inclusion of a soldier character who “doesn’t approve of war toys.” The musicians in the film seem to play music because they love it, because they’re performers, because it makes them money. There’s no hint that it goes any deeper than that, and I for one would have appreciated at least a mention of the turbulent changes that society was going through at the time.
Now we transition into the secondary “rant” that makes up this post. Since I’ve already discussed how Inside Llewyn Davis erases Dave Van Ronk’s politics, let’s get into how it relates to his character as a whole. As mentioned before, The Mayor of MacDougal Street appears to have been a primary source for the Coen Brothers when writing Insisde Llewyn Davis. Several incidents from the book- and subsequently, from DVR’s own life- are used or referenced in the Coen Brothers’ script. The most obvious one that I can think of is the story of DVR’s trip to Chicago to audition for a Mr. Grossman- a trip that, in both real life and Inside Llewyn Davis, turned out to be a total washout and ended in the loss of his seaman’s papers. Van Ronk didn’t experience quite the road trip from Hell that Llewyn did, but the humiliating audition came straight from his life story. Another example appears only in the script for Inside Llewyn Davis, where a character is quoted as saying “when Llewyn takes a solo, the hogs are restless for miles around.” This is the same sentiment that Van Ronk quotes in relation to his own voice, and I suspect that this line was removed from the script either because it was too obviously a quote from the book, or because Oscar Isaac’s performance didn’t fit the line. Other characters in the film are inspired by real-life figures, such as the aforementioned Gorssman- Bud in the film, Albert in real life- who owns a club in Chicago and manages several folk luminaries of the time. However, in order not to make a biographical film, many details of the real-life figures are changed, particularly Llewyn’s personality. Dave Van Ronk, while perhaps not the easiest man to know, was a warm and welcoming figure, doing his best to support his fellow folk singers while struggling himself (notably, he let Bob Dylan sleep on his couch back when Dylan was just starting off his career). In his book, he does note a few moments of “what could have been,” but there isn’t much of a sense that he’s truly bitter about his lot in life. (I’d say if you’re remembered well enough to have the Coen Brothers eventually make a film inspired by your life story, you’re doing pretty well for yourself.) In contrast, Llewyn is an abrasive personality who aggravates and antagonizes nearly everyone he meets. And in the context of the story itself, I don’t have a problem with that. As previously mentioned, Llewyn is depressed and grieving and having trouble coping with his emotions, and with that in mind, his less-than-charming traits are not surprising. But the fact that Llewyn Davis is inspired by Dave Van Ronk has left a bad taste in the mouths of some Van Ronk fans, given that the two personalities are not alike and Llewyn reflects poorly on what kind of man Van Ronk was. Van Ronk’s ex-wife Terri even wrote an op-ed (that I can’t link here, unfortauntely) about her dissatisfaction with the movie and how it portrays the Village music scene as dull and depressing, without the sense of camaraderie that she remembers. Again, this all works for the story, because everything is shown through the central character’s eyes. Of course the Village looks like a cold, harsh place to live, because for Llewyn, a very depressed individual, it is. Maybe it was a safe haven for him once, when he was making music with Mike, but now all the color and joy has fled from it. I completely respect the story that the Coen Brothers decided to tell… but I have an issue with the fact that they incorporated significant elements straight from Dave Van Ronk’s life story. I believe they shouldn’t have included anything directly related to Van Ronk, because Llewyn Davis stands on his own and overall paints a negative image of what Van Ronk was like.
So, those are my thoughts, and you (the void) can take them or leave them. It’s things like this that have lead me to be the only person posting fanfiction for Inside Llewyn Davis on the entirety of Fanfiction.net.
I'd put this under a cut but ever since I switched to beta mode, I have no idea how to utilize the HTML. So it goes. And so, here goes:
Inside Llewyn Davis is a film about a folk singer, inspired by/loosely based on the life of a real folk singer named Dave Van Ronk, who lived in Greenwich Village when it was the hotbed of folk music in the 1960's, all the way up to his death in 2002. An account of his life was published in 2005, entitled The Mayor of MacDougal Street. This book was written by folk historian and close friend of Van Ronk's, Elijah Wald, based heavily on DVR's own notes for a memoir and various other first person sources. (To be clear, it is written in the form of a memoir by Dave Van Ronk, although Elijah Wald was the one who strung all the bits and pieces together.) It is also clearly the primary source for the Coen Brothers' script, but we'll get into specific examples later.
I loved The Mayor of MacDougal Street when I read it, and found only one disappointing factor, an important part of DVR's life that was never so much as mentioned in the book- his involvement in the Stonewall riots of 1969. I doubt I need to explain what happened at Stonewall, but the short version is, a police raid against patrons of the Stonewall Inn (a gay bar in Greenwich Village) was the instigator for America's modern day LGBT pride movement. (I feel now it's important to put the disclaimer: I'm a straight woman, if I say anything that might be inaccurate or offensive in this post I apologize, feel free to call me out on it.) Dave Van Ronk was one of the first people arrested on that night for opposing the police and aiding the patrons at Stonewall. Ever since I read The Mayor of MacDougal Street, I have been dying to know more about DVR’s involvement in the riots that night, and for a long time I could only find two sources online that go into detail about it. A contemporary-to-the-time source states that he was dining in the area when the riot disrupted him and he came by to see what was going on (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/voice_19690703_truscott.html CW for police brutality and a deeply uncomfortable amount of casual slurs). Another such source describes his violent, "sassy" behavior in injuring a policeman with a thrown object and then back-talking him about it (https://www.villagevoice.com/2015/06/26/full-moon-over-the-stonewall-howard-smiths-account-of-the-stonewall-riots/ CW for more of the same, also side note: Dave Van Ronk is referred to as DAN Van Ronk, which deserves a [sic].) Van Ronk was charged, pled guilty to a lesser offense, and... that was, for a while, all I knew. What particularly intrigued me was the fact that DVR apparently joined the riots despite being an innocent bystander. Known as a left-wing anarchist, I figured he might have assisted the rioters due to his distaste for police brutality (and probably the police as a whole). Or was he there as a patron of Stonewall himself? There is little indication as to Van Ronk's sexuality, besides the fact that he was married twice to different women. It always feels disrespectful to me to speculate on a public figure's personal matters, especially when said public figure is now deceased, which is why I've been so hesitant to make this post. But then I discovered another source which tells the story in DVR’s own words, and clears up any lingering questions I may have had. As related in the book Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution by David Carter, Dave Van Ronk was celebrating his birthday at his favorite bar, two doors down from Stonewall, when the riots broke out. (Side note: DVR’s birthday is June 30th, and the riots began on June 28th, which happens to be my own birthday.) In Van Ronk’s own words: “I have been involved in antiwar demonstrations where the police descended on us like armed locusts. What I saw was yet another example of police arrogance and corruption. As far as I was concerned, anybody who’d stand against the cops was all right with me, and that’s why I stayed. The cops had made themselves fairly unpopular over the years with tear gas, with dogs. Every time you turned around the cops were pulling some outrage or another. I reached into my pocket and tossed a quarter or just some pennies and around that time the heavy artillery cut in. I assume that some of the street people in the park had decided to join the fray because beer cans started flying above our heads.”
What I find interesting is that DVR doesn’t admit to having thrown anything more than a couple coins (which the Stonewall patrons were throwing to symbolically pay off the cops), but other sources state that the object he threw caused serious damage to the policeman he hit. However, I tend to believe DVR when he claims he only threw a few coins, as the second account above notes that the policeman’s injury “looks a lot more serious than it really is” and Van Ronk is quoted as saying at the scene that he only threw a few coins (the “sassiness”/”snideness” could be a mistaken perception from a biased policeman). He clearly pled guilty to a lesser offense in order to preserve his career, but either way, he did participate in the riots and ended up being arrested. David Carter in his book characterizes Van Ronk as “heterosexual” and “having never thought much about gay rights,” but I feel that shouldn’t take away from his involvement. He took a look at the unjust, unethical actions from the police, and saw them as the enemy they were.
So that brings me to the story of Inside Llewyn Davis, which also indulges in much speculation- but in this case, the speculation is called "headcanon," and being a work of fiction, I feel much more comfortable talking about it (although the validity of this post might have just gone down the drain, admitting that I'm basing my point mostly off headcanons). Certain subtext in Inside Llewyn Davis has not gone unnoticed- namely, vague hints that the title character is bisexual (I'm saying bi, not gay, because he is shown to have had relationships with at least two women in the past and seems to have had genuine feelings for them. I also want to point out that much of this story, especially when it comes to the backstory and relationships established between characters, relies on "show don't tell," so that's why I'll frequently say "seems like" or anything along those lines). Now, I haven't seen a single review of the film that ever pointed this out, but here is a gif compilation of every moment in the movie that suggests this: https://cardamomblessing.tumblr.com/post/153545050752/llewyn-davis-is-bisexual-and-mike-is-his-dead Quick recap for anyone unwilling to click the link: Llewyn Davis used to have a singing partner, Mike Timlin, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge an indeterminate, but suggested to be recent amount of time before the movie starts. Llewyn is shown to be grieving Mike- although he never mentions him unless prompted, he grows upset when someone sings Mike's vocal part when he's trying to perform one of the songs they did together, "Dink's Song."The version of "Dink's Song" that appears on the soundtrack, supposedly recorded by Timlin & Davis (as Marcus Mumford & Oscar Isaac), includes the unaltered line "I had a man who was long and tall." Llewyn refers to Mike as his "partner" on numerous occasions- whether he means as a singing partner, or a romantic partner, is unclear. At one point, Llewyn is asked point-blank if he is "queer," and he uncomfortably redirects the conversation. Later in the movie, a sleazy club owner makes an impolite and slightly homophobic comment, as Llewyn responds in a monotone that sounds (to me) like he's at the end of his rope and just wants the guy to shut up. Outside of these instances, nothing is ever stated about Llewyn Davis' sexuality. Neither of the Coen Brothers have ever mentioned it, as far as I know, nor has Oscar Isaac, the man who plays the role of Llewyn Davis. It's very much a "read between the lines" type thing- my clueless teenage self didn't even notice any of this the first time I saw the movie.
Soooooooooooooo now we get to the thing that irks me- and now that I've written all this out, it seems very much like an "old man yells at cloud" type deal to call this a "rant." But, I just wanted to say. I have seen the accusation against Inside Llewyn Davis, calling out the Coen Brothers for not making Llewyn's implied sexuality more explicit. The reasoning behind this, is that Dave Van Ronk was present at the Stonewall riots and it is doing his memory a disservice. Honestly, I can't help but feel that this accusation is conflating two things that are not necessarily related. DVR didn’t seem to identify as queer (as far as we know), and he didn’t have any specific feelings towards the gay rights movement- his beef was mostly with police brutality. Of course he did prove himself to be an ally for joining the riots. But his presence at Stonewall that night, and his participation in the riots, is not sufficient justification for the lack of representation in Inside Llewyn Davis. (Honestly, I shouldn’t be too hard on those who level this criticism, because it took me a bit of googling and a trip to the library to even unearth all the details about DVR at Stonewall. It’s easy to miss the full context, and besides, I’ve already mentioned my privilege- this might be valid justification and I don’t understand it due to that.) Don’t get me wrong, though- I absolutely feel that Llewyn should have been explicitly presented as bi. If you ask me, the story hardly makes sense without it, and of course I'm all for dragging the Coen Brothers anyway (but we won't get into that). Now, this might seem hypocritical since I’m always going on about platonic relationships and how interpreting one as a romantic relationship is cheapening it, but honestly… the depth of Llewyn’s grief, which colors the entire movie, indicates a relationship close enough to be romantic. I feel like it’s easy to miss the first time the movie is viewed (and that’s exactly why we need it to be explicit), but Llewyn’s depression isn’t ordinary depression. It stems from his grief over Mike’s death. This YouTube analysis hits the nail on the head describing Llewyn’s depression, saying how music used to be something he enjoyed, but now he no longer enjoys it and is still trying to make a go of it because he can’t see himself doing anything else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnbv67k_BVk But it completely fails to mention what can easily be inferred- that music hasn’t felt the same since losing Mike. Mike and Llewyn were singing partners, their harmonies wrapping around each other like a pair of arms locked in embrace. Listening to the Macus Mumford & Oscar Isaac version of “Dink’s Song,” and then listening to Oscar Isaac’s solo version of “Dink’s Song,” gave me a profound emotional reaction the first time I heard the soundtrack album, because I could FEEL that loss. This is highlighted in the film when a music business executive tells Llewyn that he’s “no front guy” and then, upong hearing that Llewyn used to have a partner, advises him to “get back together” (not knowing that Mike committed suicide). They were partners, two halves of a whole, and now one half is gone. It’s just so easy to draw romantic parallels. I don’t expect to be taken too seriously on this because like I said, it’s all based on headcanons, but seriously, it just makes the movie’s narrative work so much better for me, and even makes Llewyn a more sympathetic, relatable character. Okay. Now that I've got that off my chest, that leads into a different issue I have with the movie- the totally apolitical outlook that it gives off.
We all know, as it's been stated and repeated many times, that art is not created in a vacuum. All art is political in some way, or at least it should be. The Coens, however, seem to do their damnedest in their movies not to take any sort of stance. Some might find this relieving, as they don't want to be "lectured" when they watch a movie, but I find that this only displays their privilege. They can afford to step out and not present any political opinions, because it doesn't affect them. I always got that feeling when I watched their movies, but it wasn't until recently that it really hit me how bizarre the lack of political opinions is in this movie particularly. The folk revival of the 50's and 60's had many ties to political movements. In his own memoir, Dave Van Ronk describes in detail his connection to far-left-leaning movements and differentiates his politics as more radical than a liberal Democrat’s. His politics even come up as a reason why he ended up pursuing music instead of shipping out on the Merchant Marine, as his sea papers had been lost and he was afraid that the government wouldn’t issue new papers to someone like him, as they were more likely to throw him in jail. Other folk singers of the time are noted to have either been involved in anarchist or communist politics, such as Pete Seeger; participated in non-violent protest and civil disobedience, such as Joan Baez; or written protest songs demanding social change, such as Bob Dylan. Many have done all three. When I personally think of folk music, I think of protest songs first, and the preservation of older music second. However, there’s no trace of protest or controversial politics at all in Inside Llewyn Davis, except for a few lines, played for laughs, where a member of the Merchant Marine mistakes Llewyn for a communist, and the inclusion of a soldier character who “doesn’t approve of war toys.” The musicians in the film seem to play music because they love it, because they’re performers, because it makes them money. There’s no hint that it goes any deeper than that, and I for one would have appreciated at least a mention of the turbulent changes that society was going through at the time.
Now we transition into the secondary “rant” that makes up this post. Since I’ve already discussed how Inside Llewyn Davis erases Dave Van Ronk’s politics, let’s get into how it relates to his character as a whole. As mentioned before, The Mayor of MacDougal Street appears to have been a primary source for the Coen Brothers when writing Insisde Llewyn Davis. Several incidents from the book- and subsequently, from DVR’s own life- are used or referenced in the Coen Brothers’ script. The most obvious one that I can think of is the story of DVR’s trip to Chicago to audition for a Mr. Grossman- a trip that, in both real life and Inside Llewyn Davis, turned out to be a total washout and ended in the loss of his seaman’s papers. Van Ronk didn’t experience quite the road trip from Hell that Llewyn did, but the humiliating audition came straight from his life story. Another example appears only in the script for Inside Llewyn Davis, where a character is quoted as saying “when Llewyn takes a solo, the hogs are restless for miles around.” This is the same sentiment that Van Ronk quotes in relation to his own voice, and I suspect that this line was removed from the script either because it was too obviously a quote from the book, or because Oscar Isaac’s performance didn’t fit the line. Other characters in the film are inspired by real-life figures, such as the aforementioned Gorssman- Bud in the film, Albert in real life- who owns a club in Chicago and manages several folk luminaries of the time. However, in order not to make a biographical film, many details of the real-life figures are changed, particularly Llewyn’s personality. Dave Van Ronk, while perhaps not the easiest man to know, was a warm and welcoming figure, doing his best to support his fellow folk singers while struggling himself (notably, he let Bob Dylan sleep on his couch back when Dylan was just starting off his career). In his book, he does note a few moments of “what could have been,” but there isn’t much of a sense that he’s truly bitter about his lot in life. (I’d say if you’re remembered well enough to have the Coen Brothers eventually make a film inspired by your life story, you’re doing pretty well for yourself.) In contrast, Llewyn is an abrasive personality who aggravates and antagonizes nearly everyone he meets. And in the context of the story itself, I don’t have a problem with that. As previously mentioned, Llewyn is depressed and grieving and having trouble coping with his emotions, and with that in mind, his less-than-charming traits are not surprising. But the fact that Llewyn Davis is inspired by Dave Van Ronk has left a bad taste in the mouths of some Van Ronk fans, given that the two personalities are not alike and Llewyn reflects poorly on what kind of man Van Ronk was. Van Ronk’s ex-wife Terri even wrote an op-ed (that I can’t link here, unfortauntely) about her dissatisfaction with the movie and how it portrays the Village music scene as dull and depressing, without the sense of camaraderie that she remembers. Again, this all works for the story, because everything is shown through the central character’s eyes. Of course the Village looks like a cold, harsh place to live, because for Llewyn, a very depressed individual, it is. Maybe it was a safe haven for him once, when he was making music with Mike, but now all the color and joy has fled from it. I completely respect the story that the Coen Brothers decided to tell… but I have an issue with the fact that they incorporated significant elements straight from Dave Van Ronk’s life story. I believe they shouldn’t have included anything directly related to Van Ronk, because Llewyn Davis stands on his own and overall paints a negative image of what Van Ronk was like.
So, those are my thoughts, and you (the void) can take them or leave them. It’s things like this that have lead me to be the only person posting fanfiction for Inside Llewyn Davis on the entirety of Fanfiction.net.
