Reflections on "The Long Good Friday"

Reflections on “The Long Good Friday”

Written by Barrie Keeffe

Directed by John Mackenzie

Starring Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren

A video presentation of this material is available here.

Gangster films may hold a certain fascination and present an intriguing insight into amoral chicanery, corruption and crime, but they rarely evoke sympathy or affection for their main character.

“The Long Good Friday” is an exceptionally fine example of a gangster film which manages to lay bare the potential realities and consequences of underworld activities and schemes while somehow retaining a degree of compassion and understanding for Harold Shand, the London gangland overlord of the film.

Interest and intrigue are created firstly by the format of the narrative – this is not merely an exposition of nefarious activities, but is presented as a mystery thriller. Crimes take place right from the start, aimed largely at damaging Harold’s “corporation”, though there is no clarity as to responsibility, motive and purpose. The audience is therefore in the same position as Harold, in terms of understanding, as he suffers bewildering and deadly attacks on his property and personnel, establishing a certain affinity from the start as Harold may be seen as a victim.

Harold presents himself as an ambitious, determined businessman with a plan to make it big in property and land development in the run-up to a potential bid for London to host the Olympic Games in 1988. He is keen to involve the “right people” and his friends in his scheme.

It is clear Harold wishes to succeed in legitimate property dealing and development but it is equally clear he is in the habit of using underhand and dubious tactics to achieve such “legitimate” success.

As in many other gangster films, our “hero” makes use of corrupt council and government officials and police officers who are more than willing to accept payment to facilitate whatever scheme Harold has in mind. Unlike other gangster films, however, these characters are developed to some extent, contribute to the film’s plot and allow us to see another side of Harold’s nature.

Harold is a complex character. He shows enthusiasm, dynamism, care, pain, regret, grief, nostalgia, sociability, loyalty, ambition and pride. He is also capable of acts of callousness, viciousness and brutality. Something of a rough diamond, he aspires to classy trappings and proceedings yet is relatively uncultured but genuine in his sentiments. Above all else, he is human.

His romantic companion is the upper-class Victoria, an intelligent and seemingly well-educated lady who appears to hold Harold in genuine affection and who is happy to nurture and direct Harold in his more legitimate business dealings and events.

For all that, Harold is the victim of deadly bombings and at least two of his “corporation” are killed, leading to his investigation to find and punish those responsible. As he gets more desperate, his thuggish nature comes to the fore and his methods become increasingly violent, from which we may impute just how he attained his exalted position in the London underworld. It is also in these circumstances that we feel the effect of the genius of the script, direction and performance, for despite Harold’s vicious and brutal assaults on others, we remain on his side.

Perhaps this is because within this amoral community, each is as bad as the other. Perhaps it is because we feel Harold is being unfairly targeted. Or perhaps it is because we have seen and shared his inner feelings, understand his ambitions and motivations and admire his familial attachment to loyalty. Whatever the reason, we feel he is defending himself and is using methods familiar to and accepted by his colleagues and enemies who all operate by the same rules.

Of course, peace between competing underworld groups will only hold if all are advantaged, and Harold is feeling distinctly disadvantaged. Gradually, the veneer of respectability, diplomacy and working relationships is revealed to be a façade as Harold takes ever more desperate measures to discover who is persecuting him.

Through no fault of his own, and as a result of coincidence and greed on the part of his underlings, Harold now faces the wrath of the IRA. Harold is warned by corrupt policeman Parky and especially his scheming protégé Jeff that he cannot deal with the IRA in the same way as he might deal with underworld competitors because they are political, are fighting for a cause and will not adhere to the accepted rules of underworld behaviour. This slight to his ego, combined with an unaccustomed sense of powerlessness and desperation to uphold his position, push him over the edge and, in a rage, he kills Jeff and goes on to try to deal with the IRA in the only way he knows how, by extreme violence.

In the end, Harold pays the ultimate price for his blinkered vision and too late realises the limits of his strong-arm approach based on intimidation against an enemy not motivated by mere greed and personal advancement.

What makes this film so compelling is not the comeuppance of a vicious gangland thug, it’s the fact that the clever script and direction build a picture of a very human and likeable gangster under siege and we have sympathy, even a certain affection, for him despite his awful deeds. A considerable achievement.

Bob Hoskins brings Harold Shand to dynamic life and we share his incomprehension, his loss, his fervour and his determination. Without the element of engagement and empathy he brings to the role, with the able support of his co-stars, this would have been a good but relatively ordinary gangster film, but instead it is transformed into a character piece of extraordinary power. Mr Hoskins may have produced many equally admirable performances, but I’m not sure he ever had a role that was more memorable.

Altogether, this is a fast-paced and emotionally engaging thriller made with vitality and verve, and special mention should be made of the catchy, dynamic and oh-so memorable music by Francis Monkman.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie

I can be reached at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk

Website

Blog

Reflections on “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”

Reflections on “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”

Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie

A video presentation of this material is available here.

The first point to make about “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” is that, absorbing though it is, it does not have much of a plot. Essentially it is a snapshot, à la Tarantino, of Hollywood and its multitude of influences on popular culture in 1969, though there is a nod toward a linking plotline by incorporating references to the real-life Manson Family and the infamous murders they committed at that time. However, even that unifying plotline based on historical figures is manipulated and altered to suit Mr Tarantino’s vision for his film.

The film consists largely of a nostalgic revisiting of the atmosphere, fashions, music, films, television, transport, language and mores of what is frequently referred to as the end of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Virtually every scene recalls some element of the time in which it is set and that alone makes the film highly enjoyable for viewers of a certain age. We also encounter numerous actors and personalities of the time, adding to the sense of nostalgia and giving the audience some insight into their true natures, as perceived by Mr Tarantino.

All this is conveyed principally through the experiences of Rick Dalton, a former TV star whose career is on the wane, and Cliff Booth, Rick’s loyal and down-to-earth stuntman and friend. These characters, their relationship and their dealings with others are quite brilliantly captured and conveyed. There can be no doubt whatsoever about Quentin Tarantino’s talent as a writer. In this film, as in his others, he creates complex characters whose traits, strengths, weaknesses and quirks are all conveyed in exchanges with others without recourse to direct exposition. We have a clear idea of what makes these characters tick through their dialogue and their attitudes displayed in interaction with others.

Though recognisably derived from the careers of a couple of Hollywood icons, Rick is nonetheless his own character – he is sensitive but ambitious, talented but self-doubting and confident yet given to angst and stress. He stammers slightly when dealing with his own affairs yet speaks clearly and confidently when in character, suggesting he is at ease only in others’ skins.

Cliff, on the other hand, seems entirely happy in his own skin. He is quietly confident, does not impose his views but is willing to express himself and act on his convictions as required, and is loyal, reasonable, realistic and unburdened by huge ambition or ego. He appears to be happy with his modest lot and is Rick’s best friend.

They appear to balance, complement and enable one another, allowing each to be more successful than he would be without the other’s input. Cliff offers a calm foundation to Rick’s anxiety-laden but talented aspiration. In the end, Cliff deals with reality, values and action while actor Rick deals with ego, people and direction. Combined, they make an effective unit.

Brad Pitt is convincingly natural and thoroughly engaging as the solid, self-assured stuntman and friend who may serve as a source of security and authenticity for his friend and employer, Rick. Leonardo DiCaprio is equally impressive as the sensitive and angst-ridden Rick, capturing the insecurity, skill and drive of a dedicated and ambitious actor.

In contrast to Rick’s tortured approach to acting and fame, we see Sharon Tate enjoying her stardom and gaining pleasure and satisfaction from the audience reaction to her scenes with Dean Martin in “The Wrecking Crew”, a light and breezy James Bond pastiche. Quentin Tarantino may have intended us to draw comparisons between this airy and undemanding approach to film-making and acting, Rick’s desperate and self-absorbed efforts to prepare and get into character and, of course, the calculating, intelligent and professional 8-year-old Trudi Fraser (who may represent the coolly analytical younger generation of actors).

However, all of them compare badly to Cliff who may be Quentin Tarantino’s most admirable character to date as he behaves like a thoughtful and caring human being while the others act and indulge themselves. I wonder if Mr Tarantino is pointing out the difference between reality and façade.

Tarantino’s characters are always clearly defined, quirky and memorable, even his minor characters, and thus the interaction between them is always entertaining and of interest even if their encounters don’t always serve to immediately advance the storyline. He has the talent and confidence to spend time establishing and developing character rather than constantly drive forward the plot.

Of course, this can be a difficult balancing act to achieve. While the building of character may strengthen emotional and intellectual engagement with the figures in a film, if that film seems to be going nowhere or lack any clear or consistent direction, such engagement will tend to dissipate. Mr Tarantino does seem to invest heavily in characterisation, often at the expense of pace and plot development.

At various points in this film he injects, very effectively, unease and even foreboding with regard to the Manson Family. He creates a sense of danger and threat, though this is not really in keeping with the atmosphere of the rest of the film and it doesn’t provide an effective story arc that might have drawn together the various component parts. Each element works very well, but they don’t blend to make a harmonious and integrated whole.

The confrontation at the end of the film involves members of the Manson Family and although this is outrageously entertaining, it is certainly not in keeping with historical fact. It was only as the end titles appeared that it struck me Mr Tarantino was perhaps tilting at Hollywood’s tendency to re-write history and has provided a satisfying ending in which the perpetrators of a hideous and savage crime get their comeuppance, while the positive and touching portrayal of Sharon Tate serves to underline the tragedy and brutality of her murder. That said, within the framework of the film, this ending does rather call in to question the need for her very presence in the film.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film as I was watching it – I found virtually every scene involving and entertaining. It was only on reflection that I began to question its narrative strength and overall direction. Mr Tarantino’s great and undeniable strength is his writing of characters and their interplay, but they are not always supported by a lucid, engaging and consistent storyline. He has utter belief and confidence in his own judgment, imagination and constructed world. He exercises control over and teases his audience as he effortlessly and entertainingly dips into elements of different genres and explores character and relationships, but the danger is that substance and relevance may fall victim to his playful and often self-indulgent direction.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article – I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie

I can be contacted at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk

HOME

BLOG