Reflections
on “The League of Gentlemen” (1960)
Directed
by Basil Dearden
Script by Bryan Forbes (from the book by James
Boland)
Starring
Jack Hawkins, Nigel Patrick, Roger Livesey,
Richard
Attenborough, Bryan Forbes et al.
What really distinguishes
“The League of Gentlemen” from other caper films is its style. Despite being in
existential and film noir territory, the audience is never in any doubt that
this is an intriguing and engaging piece of entertainment. It is written and
made with a lightness of touch which lends charm, and it is peopled by
sympathetic, if deeply flawed, characters who ensure audience empathy and even
complicity.
After some 25 years of
faithful, dutiful and unblemished service in the British Army, Lt-Col Hyde is somewhat
unceremoniously made redundant and this unleashes a tidal wave of disillusion, bitterness
and resentment. Feeling not just unappreciated but betrayed by the very
establishment he served and protected all these years, he doubts and rejects
the moral code by which he has lived and worked, and Hyde decides to plan and
execute a daring bank robbery with his customary military precision. This
outrageously self-serving and uncharacteristic act will not only fill his
coffers but will constitute his revenge on an establishment that has disrespected
him and turned its back on him.
This transformation could
have been depicted in an intense and introverted manner, focusing on Hyde’s
deteriorating mental health etc., but instead we are presented with a positive
and confident outlook honed by a determination to see his plan through. We see
he is pained and wounded by the way he has been treated, but he has channelled
his feelings into a plan for amoral revenge and because we understand the
injustice of his situation, admire his spirit and may even sympathise with him,
we are happy to go along with him and his plan.
To bring his plan to
fruition, Hyde enlists the aid of seven former army officers, chosen with great
care and attention to detail, whose skills and training will contribute to the
success of the mission. Of course, they all have at least one other thing in
common, apart from their military background – they are all crooks to one
degree or another.
We are shown a series of
vignettes which indicate that each “Gentleman” is struggling with his
circumstances and each has a reason to seek change or escape his present
situation. Again, each man’s tale is potentially gloomy but melancholy is
avoided in favour of a reasonably positive attitude, especially as Hyde offers
them a path to financial independence and freedom.
We learn more about their
dubious backgrounds at the first meeting arranged by Hyde at the Café Royal. It
is clear we are not dealing with murderers or criminal masterminds, but rather
a group of guys who, by and large, simply refuse to accept restrictions imposed
by social propriety, customs and laws as they try to make their way in life.
They may even be regarded as nice guys capable of loyalty and hard work, if the
situation benefits them, but they appear to have lost their moral compass and
indeed may have lost much direction and control of their lives, leaving them
rather downtrodden and perhaps demoralised, a position they seem to have more
or less accepted as they show little ambition or spirit.
However, Hyde provides
stimulus, purpose and a sense of self-worth when he invites them to join him in
his daring bank raid. Hyde offers leadership, spirit and direction, qualities
the other “Gentlemen” are lacking, while the group offers Hyde hope, purpose
and a chance of achieving vengeful satisfaction.
Each man gains from his
participation, and not just financially. Making a valued contribution to their
common objective within a framework of discipline and careful planning brings
out the best in each and they develop considerable camaraderie and fraternity
which may even be said to extend to the audience as we feel complicit in their
scheme.
I would point out that
this is a format and strategy used most effectively in later films such as “Ocean’s
Eleven”, “The Dirty Dozen” and “The Italian Job”, but their origins seem to lie
in this much more modest British film.
Scenes of practice and
preparation emphasise the care and precision with which the operation is
mounted, but these scenes also serve to underline the fraternity and sense of
common purpose of our “Gentlemen”. They also provide amusement, entertainment
and a sense of connivance and even conspiracy for the audience. We know that
what they are doing is wrong, but we have shared their at times affecting,
morally ambiguous and emotionally challenging background stories, and we have
witnessed their efforts and burgeoning fellowship, with the result we are
actually rooting for them as they swing into relatively non-violent action.
If an acceptable
definition of film noir is one that invites the audience to challenge the
traditional and accepted perception of morality, I can’t help but feel this
film fits the bill despite its positive and amusing style and, as I suggested
at the beginning, its style is what sets it apart. Amusing and lightly told
films noirs are rare and hard to achieve and I find their combination of light comedy
and moral challenge quite irresistibly entertaining.
In the end, we are
somewhat disappointed and saddened when our “Gentlemen” are defeated by chance
and the innocent actions of a child, the true and quite unpredictable enemies
of professional planning.
All in all, this is a
playful, amusing and thoroughly engaging piece of knowing entertainment in
which the characters are endowed with sufficient individuality, personality and
flaws to make them dubious and intriguing, yet touching and involving at the
same time. Add to this a deft humour and self-awareness and you end up with an
engaging confection intelligently and skilfully crafted for our enjoyment.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
