Sweet Sue

The director Mike Leigh makes wonderful, poignant, sometimes hopeful, sometimes bleak, stories of everyday weirdos trying to get along with their lives. You might think it a simple thing to do, but it isn't, and I've seen a number of failed attempts to clone his style. This one comes from his own son, Leo. There some similarities to his father's work, most notably 'Life is Sweet' (and not just in the name), but the characters are neither as human nor as funny, and the film seems to advertise what it is trying to do rather too obviously. In particular, Harry Trevaldwyn's wannbe influencer is a soft target, painted without any obvious affection. To be fair, this is Leo's first film as writer/director; but sadly it feels like it.

With low-budget, dreary, Brit-drama "Sweet Sue" writer / director Leo Leigh continues dad Mike's work in presenting ordinary British working-class life. Tough, blunt (NOT sweet) middle-aged Maggie O'Neill (good), stuck in a loveless rut, latches onto introspective biker Tony Pitts, thru whom she interacts with his friends (like Nick Holder) and 'flamboyant', gay, wannabe social influencer son Harry Trevaldwyn. For those after a lightly delivered depiction of the utter banality & misery of a modern daily grind, it's a fit (perked by minor support from the likes of Joshua McGuire & Jeff Rawle)- but for those looking for something uplifting and/or escapist, this ain't it.

For us long-time Mike Leigh aficionados, son and writer-director Leo's 2023 feature debut inevitably draws comparisons with the 'elder'. For all I know Leo may have constructed Sweet Sue - an offbeat drama in which Maggie O'Neill's titular 'mostly sweet' re-entrant to the dating game effectively finds herself 'mediating' between Tony Pitts' taciturn, introverted biker, Ron, and his flamboyant influencer and dancer son, Harry Trevaldwyn's Anthony - without any conscious reference to dad's work, but that is probably a stretch too far. That said, whilst the pacing, small-scale (working class) domestic setting and variable character empathy fits with Mike's oft-displayed traits, Leo's film differs in terms of a more eccentric narrative style, featuring moments of jump-cut editing and even hand-held close-ups.

Character-wise, each of Sue and Ron certainly could have been a central pairing in one of Mike's films (High Hopes springs to mind and Pitts' bearded visage calls to mind Phil Davis in the earlier film) and it is this 'delicately poised' and (ultimately) under-developed relationship that is at the heart of Leo's film. On the other hand, it would be difficult to pinpoint a direct equivalent (or even comparator) with Anthony's 'out there exhibitionist' - even if David Thewlis' Johnny and Marianne Jean-Baptiste's Pansy outwardly (at least) display a similar level of self-confidence. Leo, though, is likely more in touch(?) with the superficiality of our tech and social media-dominated state of being and his writing of Anthony (and, indeed, both Sue and Ron) is perceptively human and his characters are convincingly delivered on screen by O'Neil, Pitts and Trevaldwyn. Other elements of Leo's 'modern day set-up' which also ring true are the casting of a 'sugar daddy' for Anthony and giving us Nick Holder's 'angry man' (railing at all and sundry) Gordon - indeed, another differentiator with Mike is the amount of swearing here.

So, not a classic by any means, but enough observational accuracy and 'character curiosity' to keep this viewer moderately enthused.