john cleese recently made a comment about how difficult it is for a writer to strike a balance between character and plot. he notes that mike leigh's early dramas suffered from this, and it is one of the more interesting dynamics of his filmmaking. when i watch a mike leigh film i really don't expect much to happen. i don't think back to life is sweet, naked, all or nothing or secrets and lies and think about the plot. i think about the absolutely brilliant acting and the way leigh makes you care about the film you are watching. his characters breathe their dialogue so effortlessly it is a joy to watch. timothy spall's character, phil, in all or nothing is still one of my all time favourites. so sad and pathetic, so stuck, yet unbelievably compelling. there is more emotional truth in a mike leigh film than in a dozen hollywood flicks.

happy-go-lucky does not let us down. sally hawkins is genius as poppy, the outwardly-bubbly school teacher bringing a bit of happiness to the world around her. it is not the kind of over-simplified and dialogue-vacant film one would expect out of the lalaland machine, of course, and poppy's kindness causes her to veer towards the edge of danger on more than one occasion. it is this balancing act that hawkins manages with the character that is so watchable. although she initially seems absurd as a character, the way hawkins and leigh flesh her out is remarkable. in the end you cannot help but wish the world had a few more like her.

although i've never enjoyed live theatre (i can't manage the suspension of disbelief), i think some of the most enjoyable fiction is in the form a play and the some of the best directors come from the theatre (leigh, fassbinder and mamet are the only ones that jump to mind, although i'm sure there are many others). they bring a depth of character development that is rare to come by. perhaps it is that they understand the workshop idea of building the character collaboratively. whatever it is, i can't wait for leigh's next characters.