Guy Ritchie continues his regressive fantasy of marrying the gangster underworld with the aristocrats in The Gentlemen, but I did not mind because I needed an entertaining diversion, some real butter popcorn and a perfect location so I went along for the ride. This time around, Ritchie’s king is not Arthur, but Matthew McConaughey playing Mickey Pearson, an American in Britain who has a weed empire and acts as a bridge between the upper and lower class and gate keeper. When he entertains the idea of retirement, chaos ensues, and the story unfolds.
Before I used to think of Ritchie’s films as a bit of mindless, violent, clever fun, but now that I have been around the movie block a number of times, I can see the meaning behind the flash while the dialogue directly protests too much that I am not seeing what I am seeing. Like Tarantino, he enjoys dabbling in a little homophobia, xenophobia and racism then denies it. Black people actually get to take it easy, but we are servants, and when we do not heed our leader, we can wreak havoc, but can be reined in and recognize the proper hierarchy once reminded unlike the Jewish, Chinese, gay and Russian characters who overstep and need to be absolutely punished for their transgressions. The Gentlemen makes it clear which criminal acts are to be enjoyed and cheered and which need to be punished and disapproved, and the line is drawn in a very clear way if you know what to look for.
If The Gentlemen has a message, it is outrage over the opioid epidemic. Thank God that this section was padded with outbursts of brutality otherwise it would be a bit hard to stomach the idea of a literal criminal lecturing a bunch of drug addicted people about their lifestyle choices. It is kind of like an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. He is right, but um, not entirely. “In my day, we smoked pot, and it was good! We achieved something. Now you young whippersnappers do hard drugs, and do nothing!” OK. Sure, old man. I have never done drugs, do I get to lecture both of them, or do I need muscle to do that? Tough guys smoke pot, and don’t you forget it!
Yet I was not as outraged as I normally am though maybe you will not share my tolerance and amusement of Ritchie’s regressive crime caper so consider yourself warned. I had a bad day, and I wanted to forget it so even though I wanted to see other movies more, there is something pleasing about The Gentlemen in its delivery. I predicted around ninety-two percent of the movie’s twists and turns yet was not bored because the narrative structure, the dialogue and the cast kept me interested and moved everything along at a rapid pace that it was enjoyably familiar and revelatory.
The Gentlemen is divided into three parts more or less. It begins with a despised trope by beginning at a point that we do not see fully unfold until near the end of the film. The majority of the film is really a story that a tabloid reporter, played by Hugh Grant, tells one of Mickey’s head henchmen, a fastidious man, played by Charlie Hunnam, and we see depicted, but is not necessarily linear. Grant acts like the director and screen writer, while Hunnam is the unwilling editor correcting his excesses and insuring that the story adheres to the realism of his world. There is something to be said for a movie that rewards a viewer by posing a question that we answer then discover after a suitable amount of suspense that we are correct. If executed poorly, it is the death of a movie. If done well, then it satisfies. It was a delight to discover characters and learn how they were connected to each other, and it was exciting to anticipate how combining different characters would be, and the film does not disappoint when it delivers those interactions. Then the end is more of a traditional movie in which not one man is the master of narration although the bookends feature the same tick, the interior monologue becomes audible, which suggests that overall, the movie has one master even if in many ways, that character is not really the person on screen the most.
Thank God for prurient tabloid scandals, which Ritchie clearly despises, because otherwise Hugh Grant would not be in the middle of an acting renaissance and still be forced to play the same typecast role until the day that he died. The Gentlemen lives or dies on his ability to deliver a line, but he abandons his trademark Standard English accent for a Cockney one, and it is always a delight to see him play a bad man. His character has no moral core or shame, which makes him fun to watch. Rapscallions are always more fun anyway, but Ritchie also seems to use the character to do his take on Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood to reflect on the nature of the business that he loves.
I know that The Gentlemen’s title acts as a warning that there are not going to be a lot of women characters, but honestly I am disappointed that I did not get more Michelle Dockery. Her scenes were badass, and if there is a sequel, I need it to be focused solely on her. I am the only person in the world who has yet to catch up with Downton Abbey (it is in the queue), but without doing research, I suspect that Dockery does not play a dame in the American sense of the word that often so I definitely want more. Also I think that Ritchie deliberately made Henry Golding less superficially attractive than he actually is.
A reason to see The Gentlemen at home is that it took me awhile to get accustomed to the accents, and subtitles would have been helpful. I used to be an Anglophile so this film’s dialogue would need no deciphering, but I do not consume British movies and television shows as much as I used to, and it is easy to lose the knack. Also the only downside to watching a genuinely funny movie is that some dialogue gets lost amongst the laughter.
The Gentlemen is problematic, but it sports such a talented cast and entertained me that while I absolutely do not cosign it, I cannot pretend that I did not have a good time. Worst case scenario: at times, you feel as if you are watching a Lincoln commercial. Best case scenario: Ritchie’s latest film is closer in spirit to Snatch than his more recent film stumbles. While the language is colorful, it is not as violent as it could be considering the subject matter.