Good Luck to You, Leo Grande (2022)

[QQQQ]

IMDB Link

Two-time Academy Award winner Emma Thompson (Love, Actually) embodies the candor and apprehension of retired teacher Nancy Stokes, and newcomer Daryl McCormack (Peaky Blinders) personifies the charisma and compassion of sex worker Leo Grande. As Nancy embarks on a post-marital sexual awakening and Leo draws on his skills and charm, together they find a surprising human connection.

Streaming on Hulu (June 17).

[catrice2]

I loved this movie

[Scarlett45]

I saw YouTube ads for this and it looks charming. 

[paramitch]

I caught this and thought it was worth discussion.

SPOILERS, okay? Just a warning.

In full disclosure, I liked it -- but, aghgh, wanted to like it more than I did. Like, I'd give it a 7. A B-minus or a C-plus.

There's a lot that's really noteworthy and terrific, including (of course) the performances of Emma Thompson and Daryl McCormack in what is essentially a two-person play. Both are charming and smart and adept, and they play their characters beautifully. McCormack is a star and Thompson has been very generous on the PR tour -- I hope this boosts him further. He's just lovely and very natural.

As far as the film and story -- I thought the first third was pretty much perfect. But there's something around the midpoint that happens that I just thought felt very odd and unrealistic, which is when Nancy (kind of out of nowhere) outs Leo and tells him she knows his real name and background. He is understandably appalled, cuts off contact with her, and the rest of the film is sort of in reaction to that.

We also get a clumsily integrated later scene in which a barista basically recognizes and mocks Nancy in ways that in real life I just find are unrealistic and more apt to simply get her reported to management (not that I would do that, LOL).

I don't know. I liked it. I love the performers. It's a worthwhile topic. But -- look, I'm a playwright, so I'm bummed that this got produced when the premise is great but the script could be and should be so much better than this. We start with an exploration of sex work and an older woman's exploration of her sexuality but by the midpoint it's all soap opera stuff about her (very fake-feeling, dramatically implanted) betrayal and it just feels like a diversion to the real topic to me-- which thankfully we return to in the final segment of the film, her sexual fulfillment, in a montage in which both characters are seen openly and freely in the nude, on camera (on the shallow end, Thompson looks absolutely gorgeous, and McCormack is seriously a perfect human being).

Storywise, it's odd (but cool) to me in that it doesn't hinge around Nancy's ability to have an orgasm. And when she does, the resolution is surprising and sort of bittersweet. But it's weird to me -- please educate me if I'm wrong -- that multiple sessions with a talented sex worker still leave her sort of delighted and fulfilled by sex, to the point that she is giving huge monologues about how satisfying it is even if she's unorgasmic? I mean, is that realistic?

I'm torn between how can she give those final monologues about pleasure, to Leo, to the barista, etc. (if she has enjoyed sex more for the contact than for any experience of an orgasm), without an orgasm, yet I also found those speeches so beautiful because those monologues are SO important because they are about the human need for contact and intimacy, for a different pleasure than the culmination of orgasm. 

The film closes with an incredibly brave and lovely nude scene by Thompson in which she is not seen from the best angles or lighting, in bed, as we have seen her (and she looked amazing), but in simply standing before a mirror. And she's just standing there. Every line visible, every sag or stretch mark or puffy area visible on her body (and look, believe me, she looks 1000000x better than a younger me, so I am not judging!). And it's a beautiful moment because she is finally able to see, accept, and love herself.

I still wish this had occurred in a better movie, somehow. I didn't find Leo's backstory all that interesting, didn't think we needed it (I really wanted him to be the strong sex-worker-proud person he presented himself as being), and didn't believe some story moments were genuinely or well written. But I'm glad I watched it.

And given that we're seeing a 60-something woman exploring her sexual identity -- yes, we need more of this. I will also point to HACKS, in which we see a 69 year-old (and frankly luminous) Jean Smart have sex and enjoy it, on multiple occasions.

Interested to see what other people thought! Chime in.

[cpcathy]

I enjoyed it. You have to settle yourself in, it’s got no car chases, no explosions—just PEOPLE TALKING. Highly unusual these days. 

[raven]

On 6/26/2022 at 1:15 PM, paramitch said:

As far as the film and story -- I thought the first third was pretty much perfect. But there's something around the midpoint that happens that I just thought felt very odd and unrealistic, which is when Nancy (kind of out of nowhere) outs Leo and tells him she knows his real name and background. He is understandably appalled, cuts off contact with her, and the rest of the film is sort of in reaction to that.

She offered to call his MOTHER!!! I was horrified and wish they had not done that.  I do think that what the movie was going for was that she was feeling some kind of friendship - I even think she says something along the lines of "I thought we were becoming friends" and THAT felt kind of true.  Nancy is a woman who was unfulfilled in her only relationship with a man thus far (deceased husband) so I could see how she could easily mistake Leo's professional closeness for something it wasn't.  I think the age gap also had something to do with her reaction here and I wish the movie had touched upon that more. Yes, he is extremely handsome but to me looked barely out of his teens.  I was wondering if Nancy was trying to cover up feelings that she may have felt were inappropriate by offering to be a friend/surrogate mom, which is weird but I could understand in the context of her being confused about her emotional and sexual awakening.  She did not know how to handle what she was feeling and I thought the way Emma Thompson played it was indicative of this.  I just wish that theme had been explored more.  I did like that by the end of the movie she realized what she did was wrong and she apologized.

Daryl McCormack was fantastic - I was getting a little bored with hearing about Nancy's problems, but it was his job to listen and he was very, very good at it.   You can see that he is somewhat appalled but trying to cover it up when she talks negatively about her children.   The acting was very subtle and well done.

Emma's role was a bit more showy in that she gets to articulate Nancy's history and feelings while Leo remains a cipher.  I did think it was interesting that she was presented as flawed - criticizing her kids, for instance.  Most films would not want to portray her motherhood in a critical manner.   She also snapped at him about not wanting to hear a sales pitch when he was talking about how he encourages clients to have regular visits - which is a sales pitch and I didn't mind that she called him on it.

On 6/26/2022 at 1:15 PM, paramitch said:

But it's weird to me -- please educate me if I'm wrong -- that multiple sessions with a talented sex worker still leave her sort of delighted and fulfilled by sex, to the point that she is giving huge monologues about how satisfying it is even if she's unorgasmic? I mean, is that realistic?

I think for Nancy it is.  Her description of sex with her husband - the only man she had ever been with - was that he would climb on top, rub her shoulders and breasts and they would have intercourse.  She'd never received nor given oral sex.  So I think that her experiences with Leo gave her fulfillment in that she now knows what sex can be, and more importantly, that she is capable of doing the things on her list (which I loved, plus Leo's reaction "all of this tonight"?) and more.  She is fulfilled because she can do those things and she can enjoy them.  She can direct him to do what she wants and she can express herself. 

Though I liked it, I agree it could have been better.  The acting was top notch though and I enjoyed the hotel room location - by keeping them in that one place for 99% of the film, it encouraged closeness and interesting camera angles. 

[paramitch]

14 hours ago, raven said:

She offered to call his MOTHER!!! I was horrified and wish they had not done that.  I do think that what the movie was going for was that she was feeling some kind of friendship - I even think she says something along the lines of "I thought we were becoming friends" and THAT felt kind of true.  Nancy is a woman who was unfulfilled in her only relationship with a man thus far (deceased husband) so I could see how she could easily mistake Leo's professional closeness for something it wasn't.  I think the age gap also had something to do with her reaction here and I wish the movie had touched upon that more. Yes, he is extremely handsome but to me looked barely out of his teens.  I was wondering if Nancy was trying to cover up feelings that she may have felt were inappropriate by offering to be a friend/surrogate mom, which is weird but I could understand in the context of her being confused about her emotional and sexual awakening.  She did not know how to handle what she was feeling and I thought the way Emma Thompson played it was indicative of this.  I just wish that theme had been explored more.  I did like that by the end of the movie she realized what she did was wrong and she apologized.

Oh my God, THIS. I was just so horrified by her "I know who you really are" conversation, and I just continue to feel it was a hugely discordant note in the film and story. It instantly sidelines what's happening and turns it into an entirely different story.

I get that there might have been some deliberate Oedipal undercurrents there, but I would argue that that is exactly what this should have AVOIDED. Simply because it's the cliche. Yes, by all means, let's turn the older woman seeking sexual satisfaction into someone conflating that situation with her CHILDREN. (Or, let's NOT. Gahhh.)

So I hate it for multiple reasons. Just seriously a wrong-headed and clumsy dramatic insertion. It felt to me like the writer felt they needed to interject drama instead of trusting the character dynamics. What if it had instead been a gentler conflict -- that she can't orgasm, or that he feels he must give that to her? (I would definitely want to avoid the classic "he/she/they get romantic feelings for each other" trope, personally).

Quote

I think for Nancy it is.  Her description of sex with her husband - the only man she had ever been with - was that he would climb on top, rub her shoulders and breasts and they would have intercourse.  She'd never received nor given oral sex.  So I think that her experiences with Leo gave her fulfillment in that she now knows what sex can be, and more importantly, that she is capable of doing the things on her list (which I loved, plus Leo's reaction "all of this tonight"?) and more.  She is fulfilled because she can do those things and she can enjoy them.  She can direct him to do what she wants and she can express herself. 

Thanks for this thoughtful response, and I think you're right and I was wrong and overly hasty. You make a great point that the entire interlude with Leo -- the sensuality of it, the thoughtfulness and responsiveness, would have been revolutionary for her based on her (many years) of previous experience. So I definitely think you're right, and that works for me dramatically. 

My main thing is that while I liked that this is sex-work-positive, it also makes sure it is not TOO sex-work-positive, and I think that choice was regrettable. I think the point the film makes is important and healthy on its own, and would have been even stronger if written differently.

It's basically also how I felt about THE SESSIONS, which I loved (fantastic and brave performances by Helen Hunt and John Hawkes), in which Hunt's sex worker is a wholly positive help to Hawkes, a disabled man, but then I was disappointed that the story then

Spoiler

had to include what I felt was an unnecessary romantic undercurrent (although I also realize it included some real-life elements). But for me those elements cheapened the underlying relationship and undermined sex work as a whole.

[raven]

4 hours ago, paramitch said:

I get that there might have been some deliberate Oedipal undercurrents there, but I would argue that that is exactly what this should have AVOIDED. Simply because it's the cliche. Yes, by all means, let's turn the older woman seeking sexual satisfaction into someone conflating that situation with her CHILDREN. (Or, let's NOT. Gahhh.)

Exactly!  At their first appointment, Leo says something to the effect that there must be men wanting to have sex with Nancy and she replies "yes, but they're old".  She wanted a younger man (and I'm guessing no entanglements) and there's nothing wrong with that.  We didn't need her to go all motherly, bah.

You bring up a good point about the sex work.  Of course Leo says he loves his job and maybe he does.  It's possible the movie was trying to get us (clumsily) to learn more about his background by Nancy being so intrusive.  IMO to have them proceed to a friendship where he confides in her would have been unrealistic, so I am glad they didn't go that route.  That said, we can only guess what Leo's true feelings are about his profession.   I think at a couple of points Leo looked slightly uncomfortable when Nancy questioned him, so maybe there's a clue there or he could have just been uncomfortable because she was prying.

[Irlandesa]

On 6/26/2022 at 12:15 PM, paramitch said:

But it's weird to me -- please educate me if I'm wrong -- that multiple sessions with a talented sex worker still leave her sort of delighted and fulfilled by sex, to the point that she is giving huge monologues about how satisfying it is even if she's unorgasmic? I mean, is that realistic?

I think so.  As others have stated, her previous sexual relationship didn't involve any participation whatsoever--not in pleasing herself and not in pleasing her husband. So the sessions allowed her to explore what she liked and I'm sure she got encouragement from Leo, even if it was paid encouragement.  She can do it and she's good at it.

However, sex/sexual acts can feel pleasurable even without an orgasm.  Kind of like a massage.  I did find it a little strange that she was so sanguine about it, though.  If she wanted to experience everything about sex, I think she'd be a little more obsessed about getting there at least once.  Then again, she didn't even consider getting sex toys for herself so maybe not. 

On 6/28/2022 at 12:28 PM, paramitch said:

I get that there might have been some deliberate Oedipal undercurrents there, but I would argue that that is exactly what this should have AVOIDED. Simply because it's the cliche. Yes, by all means, let's turn the older woman seeking sexual satisfaction into someone conflating that situation with her CHILDREN. (Or, let's NOT. Gahhh.)

On 6/28/2022 at 5:05 PM, raven said:

We didn't need her to go all motherly, bah.

I view her actions through a different lens. I didn't see this woman as motherly even though she has two children. It's an aspect of her character I felt went against what we'd expect from the depiction of a 60-year-old widow. 

The part of her character I think it did fit perfectly is the one where she's an English teacher.  They made sure to highlight her career early.  I saw her list of sex acts as learning objectives.  I thought her curiosity about his life was her attempt to figure out what makes Leo tick the way she probably did with students when she wanted to know how to motivate them.  I think she saw Leo's desire to hide a part of himself from her as a silly game students sometimes play not realizing that their teachers have seen it all and likely can figure out their games easily. 

Leo is probably older than her students were but I'm guessing he's close enough in age to the type of guy she taught over and over and over again that those instincts kicked in even when she rejected his more explicit attempt at role playing. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Irlandesa

[Scarlett45]

I’m finally sitting down to watch this (I know it’s been on my list forever). 
 

I enjoyed that this felt very much like a play, Emma Thompson did a fantastic job. I didn’t consider Nancy’s boundary crossing Oedipal, but I did see it in line with her role as a religious education teacher. I certainly think the generation gap played into this. 
 

Daryl McCormack gave a stand out performance as well. Of course he is incredibly handsome and charismatic, but the subtle bits of acting he was able to do with his face, holding his own with a more experienced actress was superb.
 

Emma Thompson looks amazing. People called her “brave” for the nude scene at the end?? She’s a goddess.