Skip to main content

I’m basing my whole crescendo on the sum of its parts.

The Gentlemen
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s version of a palate cleanser, following an extended Hollywood sojourn that yielded mixed results. Which means The Gentlemen doesn’t so much dive gracefully as belly flop into his favourite mockney gangster milieu, splashing a slew of delightfully dodgy characters across the screen, all operating across varying levels of inimitably Ritchie-defined social strata and blessed with a range of colourful vernacular as their plans to outwit and double-cross each other are in turn outwitted and double-crossed.

This kind of thing hasn’t really changed since Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels; Ritchie’s the way you’d imagine Tarantino would be if the latter hadn’t “matured” (which is to say, started making fictionalised versions of how he’d set history to rights in a catharsis of explosive bloodshed, reaping Oscar nominations for his pains). Like Tarantino, he also revels in a wish-fulfilment vision of the uncensored, unreconstituted alpha male, epitomised by a propensity for wanton violence along with cheerful crudity and coarseness – usually entailing degrees of homophobia and racism – oh, and a keen eye for fashion.

Most like Tarantino, and the aspect often missed in his Hollywood outings, even where he has a writing credit, is Ritchie’s facility for banter, badinage and back and forth. Accordingly, the greatest pleasure to be derived from The Gentlemen is exactly that, built as it is on characters really enjoying hearing the sound of their own voice. Or rather, Ritchie really enjoying hearing the sound of their, meaning his, voices.

Which is to say, there’s a lot of fun to be had with the director’s faux-hard-man schoolyard games, particular so in this instance, having set the wheels of his plot in motion with such dexterity and delirium. Ritchie has always had fun with withholding, playing with what you as the viewer do or don’t know, often throwing in grandstanding visual virtuosity to reinforce the point (sometimes to the point of overkill, but that’s impetuous enthusiasm for you).

In The Gentlemen, he embraces the unreliable narrator device in the form of Hugh Grant’s investigative journalist Fletcher. Fletcher represents an all-time-great Grant performance, a shameless vulgarian equipped with a sneering, weasely voice and an endless capacity for the depraved that recalls Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges. Fletcher’s offering to sell his dossier on the activities of weed baron Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) to Mickey’s lieutenant Raymond (Charlie Hunnam), the negotiation of which necessitates Fletcher explaining just what he knows about Mickey, his plans for retirement, competitors in the market, and various other strands that have gone towards making the very carefully-maintained business suddenly a particularly high risk one.

Aside from being such an entertaining raconteur, Fletcher’s position as self-conscious yarn spinner, handing Raymond a script of the movie we’re watching and invoking widescreen presentation and camerawork to which Ritchie provides visual support, avoids the lazier traps of this device (come the final scenes, Fletcher is very cutely trying to sell his screenplay to Miramax, and there is talk of a sequel; Ritchie wisely leaves his best character’s fate undetermined).

Crucially, in terms of avoiding making the audience feel they may just be watching a lot of irrelevant, half-concocted nonsense, Fletcher is, largely, providing an accurate account of events, albeit with embellishments Raymond calls him out on (“Every movie needs a bit of action, doesn’t it?” asks Fletcher rhetorically, following a very Ritchie piece of gangster ultra-violence, one he just made up). Such flights of fantasy are bursting with exhilarating inventiveness – Fletcher as a stand-in for Ritchie himself – as are such conceits as persuading Raymond to join in reading out a transcript of a conversation held in Cantonese between Jeremy Strong’s potential buyer Matthew Berger and Henry Golding’s Chinese mob lieutenant Dry Eye to footage of the same.

But Fletcher’s tale is also crucially re-framed once events have been brought up to date; Raymond knows what Fletcher doesn’t, that he’s been aware of his surveillance. But then, Fletcher also knows what Raymond doesn’t, that a Russian oligarch has, with Fletcher’s assistance, arranged a hit on Mickey and Raymond. The escalation is handled with almost relaxed confidence by Ritchie, culminating in the amusing sight of Fletcher taking off over fences in the manner of one very much not used to hurdles.

After a King Arthur: Legend of the Sword that didn’t really show Hunnam off to his best potential, and a number of roles where he has been likewise less than commanding (Pacific Rim, Crimson Peak, Triple Frontier), the actor has been served a plum role this time, such that really seems more like the lead than McConaughey, whom we see mostly in flashbacks and who is given very much the straight man part. I found Golding underwhelming in Crazy Rich Asians, but he makes the most of a fairly standard-issue villain. Eddie Marsan is having a great time as the newspaper editor – The Daily Print, no less – out to bring Mickey down for a perceived snub, while Colin Farrell yet again proves he should never be cast in classic leading man roles, as he only really comes alive when, as here, there’s something offbeat or nuanced to get his teeth into (here, he’s a fast-talking, straight-shooting boxing coach, called Coach).

I can’t say I registered Dean Gaffney, but I did spot Sting’s daughter (and musician, although her recent techno experiments as Vaal aren’t entirely persuasive) as Samuel West’s junkie daughter. Michelle Dockery plays Mickey’s wife Rosalind (“There’s fuckery afoot” might be the movie’s best and most signature Ritchie line), established as a very Ritchie envisaging of a strong woman: no messing about, successful at business, employing an entire accompaniment of alluringly fetishised, all-female mechanics in dungarees. And yet the climax inevitably revolves around her needing her husband to race through the streets to rescue her from attempted rape.

Ritchie’s proclivity for the unrepentantly adolescent is also alive and well in the payoff to the Marsan plotline, boasting as it does some hearty pig porking. Elsewhere, Togo Igawa’s heroin boss is induced to projectile vomit cartoonish volumes of tea, and Strong – ever engaging – is promised he will have a pound of flesh extracted, part of Ritchie’s ongoing fascination with skim-reading Cliff’s Notes for Shakespeare references he can incorporate. And if he has boasted of holding the camera down this time – it’s true that there’s scarcely a speed ramp to be found – he’s as eager as ever to crack open his box of editing tricks, incorporate cheeky subtitles and employ choice musical accompaniments to his set pieces.

Ritchie’s movie was formerly known as Toff Guys and Bush; the director’s conceit is the reasonably plausible one that Mickey has ingratiated himself with landed gentry, paying for the upkeep of their stately homes and in return using their land to grow cannabis. If The Gentlemen is a less attention-seeking title, one is given pause by its similarity to old producer Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman franchise. But with a billion-dollar grosser to his name, Ritchie has nothing to prove, which may be why The Gentlemen exudes such easy confidence – at one point, a wall prominently displays a framed poster for his flop The Man from U.N.C.L.E. – and may also be why it’s one of his most satisfying movies, on either side of the Atlantic.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.