Okay, guys, it’s cards on the
table time. I have been to a lot of
gentlemen’s clubs. I mean a lot. I have probably spent more money in these
sorts of places than I have on my education and wardrobe combined (and if
you’ve ever met me, you would find this extremely easy to believe, I guarantee
it). The way these places are typically
portrayed on film is slightly exaggerated, though. They’re usually depicted as dens of inequity,
where there are no boundaries, and any woman’s body can be bought, in total, if
the price is right. Not true. Oh, I’m sure there are places like that out
there (though they invite the nomenclature “brothel” rather than “strip club”
or “gentlemen’s club”). I haven’t been
in them (or if I have, I never witnessed anything along the lines of
illegality). Yes, really.
The strippers I’ve met were
generally nice women simply looking to make a living in a way they are both
adept at and out of which they derive some small amount of pleasure (or at least don't entirely loathe). And even if you did get friskier than you
should (and no, I did not, thank you very much), there are ample muscle-bound
bouncers around to put you (and the ladies) in check. I haven’t been in one of these clubs in a
long while, but the last time I was in one, the experience was different. The atmosphere of fun there used to be fun
was all but gone (or at the absolute minimum, vastly changed). I can only assume this is me getting old,
finding places and people I used to enjoy have become shrug-worthy rather than
exciting. Perhaps it’s because these
places, which used to be avoided by most, have become not only culturally accepted,
but just plain cool to visit (remember what Groucho Marx said about clubs and memberships?). And this is why I come down in the middle if
I were to be asked whether I would to like hang out in a gentlemen’s club or
with Basil Dearden’s The League Of Gentlemen. Sadly, either would reach about the same
level of fun from my current outlook.
Seven men, at various low points
in their lives, receive a copy of John Seaton’s The Golden Fleece with one half of a five-pound note in each. Heeding the call, they meet with one Mr. Hyde
(Jack Hawkins) for a luncheon. The enigmatic man reveals that they are all
ex-military, and, like the characters in the novel he sent them (which, by all
accounts [and like its writer], is a fiction invented by either the filmmakers
or John Boland, the [real] author of
the [real] novel on which this film is based), he would like to plan and
execute a daring, daytime robbery with their support.
Primarily, this is more of an
Assemble The Team film than it is a Heist film.
The majority of the runtime deals with prepping for the heist and how
the men come together to do just that.
The reason for this, to my thinking, is because of the nature of these
men. Being ex-military, these men know
about following orders and about the need for efficiency in such an undertaking. This supersedes the differences over which
the men would likely have conflicts. For
example, Stevens (Kieron Moore) is a
homosexual, and he winds up rooming with the most heterosexual of the group,
Lexy (Sir Richard Attenborough). However, after a brief offhand remark about
keeping the lights on at night, the situation is dropped, and the men get along
like a house on fire. And that’s part of
the problem. The men have very little to
overcome in order to become a team, and their pasts do not intrude much to
cause complications. Thus, we are left
with a film where the only tension comes in the form of the work the men take
on, rather than from issues they have with each other. This would be all well and good, were more of
the film focused on the job, but much of it is following the men around as they
cheerfully perform their duties like clockwork (accompanied by an anthemic,
march-style score from Philip Green). It makes for a bit of dry viewing, though it
needs to be said that there are also several genuinely funny moments (one of
the best being a breezy comment in regards to the status of Hyde’s wife), and
stylistically the film’s camerawork and editing performs with the military
precision of its characters. So, in that
respect it clicks.
Each of the men has a reason why
he is taking on this job. Porthill (Bryan Forbes) wants the money to escape
the life of being a low-rent gigolo.
Rutland-Smith (Terence Alexander)
wants the money to escape an emasculating wife.
Lexy wants the money to buy into a lifestyle (and especially the women
that come with it) which has eluded him.
As I stated above, however, these issues take a back seat once the
training begins. The reason for this is
because it is not the money that these men truly crave. It is the military lifestyle they used to share
which each needs to fill the hole in his life.
All of them were drummed out of the military for one reason or another
(and it’s not as if these discharges were unwarranted; one of them even got
soldiers killed due to his alcoholism and gross negligence). But the prepping and execution of the heist
allows them to get back into and essentially complete a portion of their lives
which had been cut short. This is
exemplified in the scene where the team pays a visit to a military training
camp. The men slide easily back into
their military roles, and there is a facile confidence exuding from each of
them which was not there when we first met them. They may need the money, but they want to be
military men again (or at least regain those aspects which gave their lives
structure). It’s a primal drive that
fulfills their souls, not their wallets.
Without this they would be common criminals but with it, they are
brothers-in-arms.
MVT: The heist is not
handled as if it is the most important element of the film, what with each
portion of it being carried off with very little kerfuffle to it. However, it looks exceptional, and the
smoke-choked streets, combined with the team scurrying around with gas masks and
machineguns, is reminiscent of the classic images we have in our cultural
consciousness of scenes of trench warfare from World War Two. These striking visuals carry the audience
over the more pedantic aspects of the picture (though it can certainly be
argued that meticulousness is one of the main, if not THE main, draw of a Heist
film).
Make Or Break: The first
meeting of The League is a classic of exposition and whetting the
appetite. We get more background information
on the characters, while also raising some new questions about them and their
motivations. Further, the scene
solidifies the plot, handily, and it does it in a visually interesting fashion
(no small feat, since it all takes place in one room; not quite Twelve Angry Men, but still…).
Score: 7.25/10
No comments:
Post a Comment