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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.