The article is graceful and insightful. But, like so many of Leigh's masterful movies, Happy Go Lucky invites multiple interpretations. For me, Poppy's "happiness" was pathological. It prevented her from experiencing intimacy, it put her in danger, and it forced everyone around her to carry the shadow for her. I felt she was a deeply troubled character, in great pain, who comes to realize during the course of the movie that maybe -- just maybe -- she can't force the world and people around her to compensate for her own sense of suffering and inadequacy.
The Buddhist point of view may emphasize renunciation and compassion, but isn't the real starting point first experiencing our own pain, confusion, and aggression, and our limitations in regards to ourselves and others? Without acknowledgement of our own shadow, we are profoundly destructive in the world.
I'd also like to say, with respect, that stroking the hair of a homeless person could be interpreted as a compassionate act or as an invasion of personal space. Does a state of homelessness necessarily imply a loss of personal agency and boundaries?
Just thinking out loud here, not trying to be dogmatic.