Guy Ritchie’s Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000) - Masculinity

“An excremental vision of the city and nostalgic images of ‘unreconstructed’ forms of working class masculinity [are] found in Guy Ritchie’s films” (Dave 2006: 12) Discuss in relation to Ritchie’s Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and/or Snatch (2000).

Guy Ritchie’s British Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Ritchie, G. 1998) and Snatch (Ritchie, G. 2000) are films that to an extent exert an “excremental vision of the city and unreconstructed forms of working class masculinity” (Dave, P. 2006). Lock, Stock… follows four inexperienced men who gamble themselves into debt and encounter many issues along the way to repay the money. Similarly, Snatch is about gangsters, robbers, and boxing promoters all attempting to track down an irreplaceable stolen diamond. These films are deliberately different from the kinds of films Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson cohort, which often present themes of a more prestige, middle class lifestyle. In Ritchie’s films, London’s underbelly and the criminal underclass are addressed. Many spectators were tired of the misrepresentation possessed in the heritage text. Ritchie has returned back to more traditional forms of masculinity, born out of heterosexual, working-class men. However, there are still some elements within the films that do reinforce reconstructed ideas on masculinity.

Director (and Writer) Guy Ritchie has been named an auteur by many critics for his renowned style in his British New Gangster Chic films, including Snatch and Lock, Stock… because of the common unique themes they possess. Andrew Sarris, arguably the creator of auteur theory, defined the auteur as someone that “Over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain recurring characteristics of style, which serve his signature” (Aleksandrowicz, P. p.165). Guy Ritchie grew up in Britain and had experienced the drug and sex culture from a young age. Steve Tisch, a producer at the time, described Ritchie as “not a film-school wonder boy. He has no awareness of movie history and in a way that’s refreshing” (Corliss, R. Ressner, J. 1999). Although his direction did not appeal to middle class audiences, he wanted to produce a real example of Britain. We can see the influence of his working class childhood in the films. The exclusion of women, along with excessive violence, fighting, gambling, debt, pub culture, and double-crossing characters account to Ritchie’s auteur style in terms of narrative. In terms of production, Ritchie often includes slow motion, split screen, narration, and Latino/Funk/Jazz sound. Another key theme included in his films is the macguffin, for example; in Snatch it takes the form of a diamond; in Lock Stock… it is the antique guns; and in Rocknrolla (Ritchie, G. 2008) it is the painting. One of the final elements he embeds is New Laddism, which refers to images of laddishness governed by “the prototypical ‘male pastimes’ of drinking, watching football, and sex.” (Deakin, P. p.49) All of these amount to the auteur style Ritchie has in his films. It is important to consider that “the gangster cycle was already in motion before the release of Ritchie’s film” (Murphy, R. 2009. p.375) therefore he is not solely responsible for this genre, but does have his own interpretation of it.

In both of the films, the city of London is presented as a rough, unsafe place. There is a lot of crime and violence happening in broad daylight and open public, the police also appear to be ineffective. In Lock, Stock… Hatchet Harry Lonsdale (P. H. Moriarty) owns a sex shop in which most of the interactions happen. Despite being a vastly dangerous character, the police do not interfere with any of his ‘dodgy’ business. There is an indefinite excremental vision of the city; the films highlight the realistic run-down working class areas in predominantly London and the dull buildings and ‘sketchy’ life there. Mickey (Brad Pitt), an Irish traveler in Snatch, lives on a degenerate caravan site along with many other travelers. The warehouse where Mickey fights (and later kills) ‘Gorgeous George’ (Adam Fogerty) in an illegal fight takes place in a room full of chanting men as if it is a regular occurrence, yet nothing has prevented this happening. Furthering this idea, in a scene from Snatch where the police do arrive, Tommy (Stephan Graham) and Turkish (Jason Statham) manage to outtalk them with an unbelievable lie… that they are at the campsite walking ‘their’ dog and not to scout Mickey for a fight. Robert Murphy argued “young, working-class criminality was given full rein in a rash of British gangster films” (Murphy, R. 2009. p.22), which is the case for Ritchie’s work. London is centered on criminal activity in Snatch and Lock, Stock… and it is advertised as a place built on illegal work from the working class men. London does not represent the ideal place to live in either of the films, but the intention was for the claustrophobic view of the city to be manifested on screen and the films succeed in that.

Alongside the genre of British Gangster Crime, the films also include a vast amount of comedy and humor. The humor is tailored to a British audience, therefore individuals that do not have a British cultural understanding could potentially not understand the comedy in the same way those who are would. However, the comedy is much more centered around working-class humor and different to that of the heritage/middle-class films. For example, the ‘Jump’ scene from Love Actually (Curtis, R. 2003) where the Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) dances around his lavish house, is very different to the humor in Snatch and Lock, Stock… A scene in Snatch that demonstrates this difference in humor would be the sarcasm of Turkish to Tommy when he requests a new caravan. Tommy does not understand why he needs a new caravan, regardless of it evidently being ruined and dirty; therefore Turkish says it is because he does not like the colour, while pulling the door off its hinges. Many examples across the two films show very ‘masculine’ working-class senses of humor based on swearing and at the expense of their friends, which can often be seen as patronising at times.

Representation of women in Ritchie’s films Snatch and Lock, Stock… does not follow or conform to previous films that have a personable aesthetic. Reconstructed forms of men, prior to the outbreak of the gangster film, were tailored to a more mainstream audience. Therefore the men were middle class, romantic and well put together. The characters in Ritchie’s films are the binary opposite of this whereby the men do not acknowledge women. In Lock, Stock… the only ‘main’ female characters are the card dealer and the unconscious girl in the flat. Film critic Murphy recognised that the “comatose stoned girl… is treated like a piece of furniture: other characters literally sit on her” (2000. p.162). There are also many women who are ‘strippers’ in the sex shop Hatchet Harry owns. Although this is a negative representation of women, there is not much representation to address, because women are almost completely uninvolved. Comparably, in Snatch, Mickey’s mum is the most notable female character and she is seen as ‘Gypsy scum’ and her life is short lived when she dies within the film after being involved in a fire. The only exception when a woman is seen equal to men is a robbery scene in Snatch, where a woman handles a gun. The absence of well-rounded women in the gangster film is significant because it is a change from films previously. It highlights the lad culture that dominates the films and possible underlying misogyny. “Guy is a guys guy” (Corliss, R. Ressner, J. 1999), contended by a critic, which is clear in his male dominated texts.

As Dave Smith argued “unreconstructed forms of working class masculinity are found in Guy Ritchie’s films” (2006). This is most evident though the violence and fighting, seen in Snatch and Lock, Stock… Men are viewed as ‘geezers’, masculine and strong. The sheer amount of death and injury across the two films caused by gun use, car crashes, and overall physical fighting epitomises Ritchie’s idea of working-class men. In the picturesque world, “the only legitimate occupation is the hustle” (Murphy, R. 2009. p.377). The men in the films are seen to do anything to get what they want. As Turkish from Snatch explains, “for every action, there is a reaction”, which is something that drives the narratives forward. Male characters from the films present the underworld in Britain and carry “unrespectable conceptions of Englishness” (Murphy, R. 2009. p.375). A memorable example of this would be when Big Chris (Vinnie Jones) commits all of his crimes around his son Little Chris (Peter McNicholl). Big Chris involves his son in his mayhem, exposing him to the harsh underworld. Little Chris swears frequently in the film, which highlights the working class to be unfit to parent and setting the correct example. Vinnie Jones’s character is “a father whose rule is so powerful that a mother is superfluous” (Murphy, R. p.378). The film eliminates females who may interfere with the male solidarity or distract the bonding in brotherhood. Very similar is the case in Snatch at the Irish caravan site when the children try to blackmail Tommy for cash. Although the majority of the male characters are strong, there are times throughout the film where this does not conform.

Vulnerable male protagonists and antagonists also appear in the films. The four central characters in Lock, Stock… are unsure what to do in their debt situation. They also seem to dislike violence and are uncomfortable when they find the traffic warden in the stolen vehicle. Likewise, the final scene when they appear to have the half a million pounds and destroyed the antique ‘worthless’ guns; it takes a turn that presents how inexperienced they are. The bag of money is empty besides a book about weapons and from this they discover the guns are valuable. What happens after this is never confronted. Snatch also includes similar bewildered men. An example is the betting shop robbery sequence. The men attempt to leave with money but as a result of being unprepared and amateur only end up being trapped with a bag of copper coins. Tough, rugged, and vigorous working class masculinities are not the only male types presented. These examples besides many more to an extent disprove Paul Dave’s interpretation on Ritchie’s “unreconstructed” (2006) masculinity. There are still reconstructed forms of males in the films.

Central to both Snatch and Lock, Stock… is also the New Lad behavior the characters display. Ritchie bases his films on ladland attitude, which all derived from Loaded Magazine. “The new lad ethos was neatly encapsulated in Loaded’s cover line “For Men Who Should Know Better” (Murphy, R. 2000). New Laddism is a removal away from females and a return to sexual promiscuity, football, and the pub. At this time of the late nineties and early two thousands, the Frat Boy was popular in America. Although extremely different in many respects, both male types have outlandish, narcissistic, hedonistic behavior. Completely removed from commercial masculinities, the characters in Snatch and Lock, Stock… are parallel with Dave’s undoing of reconstructed masculine identity. “At best, the new lad stood for a humorous, hedonistic and above all regressive escape from demands of maturity – and women.” (Murphy, R. 2000). While the urban underclass and criminality was absent from many British films, the new lad culture in Gangster Crime films revived this. Ritchie himself was said “after a long day of shooting, I want to be able to have a pint with the lads” (Murphy, R. p.378), important because these ideals are part of his personal view of men, off-screen too. Men are surviving in their mullock city by disregarding their usual forms of impression as friendly, romantic men and exchanging it for a nostalgic masculinity. There is a clear “struggle for survival and supremacy” (Murphy, R. 2009. p.377) and as a consequence the criminal activity emerges. In Ritchie’s Lock, Stock… and Snatch both “evoke a world of masculine competitive sociability” (Murphy, R. 2009. p.377), also known as Ladland. Reoccurring themes of debt, gambling and pub culture obeyed the kind of masculine image Ritchie predominantly held.

British working class characters are represented almost always through speech and language in any film. Accent and area is important in British culture, and this is continued in Snatch and Lock, Stock… with the cockney accent. The derogatory term ‘pikey’ is used to define the travelers in Snatch. There is also a lot of humor based around ‘gypsies’ being crafty by using their impossible-to-understand accent as a means to trick and blackmail. The term ‘pikey’ is “solely applied negatively to Travelers… linking them to petty theft, crime, and generally low socioeconomic activities” (Coffey, R. J. 2011). The travelers in the film self-fulfill the stereotypes of a ‘pikey’ in many ways, for instance, the dodgy caravan deal. “Ritchie has different white English characters express what is comically signaled to be a non-negotiable prejudice for ‘pikeys” (Dave, P. 2006. p.17). Ritchie’s films have a politically inaccurate multiculturalism. Lock, Stock… emphasises the comedic controversy between the two sides of the compass when characters name one another “Northern monkeys” and “Southern fairies” (Ritchie, G. 1998). Both films have nicknames for the characters such as ‘Bullet Tooth Tony’, ‘Franky Four Fingers’, ‘Barry the Baptist’, and ‘Plank’, which bring back the working class nature that the films portray. The kinds of names would not be used in heritage texts. “The eccentric names for characters and lazy mythologising of the salt-of-the-earth cockney ethos… looked shopworn.” (Forshaw, B. 2012) The discussion within the diegesis about accents and use of sobriquets, as Forshaw argued, does highlight a negative impression on working-class culture, specifically men in these films.

In the late nineties and early two thousands, Britain’s success films were about the London underbelly and the working-class. America was producing a different kind of film, with the same type of masculine males. However, that is not to say that American films were unaware of the kinds of representation Britain were producing of the working-class, “Crime film genre found uneasy common cause between the pressures of working class life and the opportunities offered by lawbreaking…close[r] to the American product of the 1940s which demonstrated similar readiness to draw such parallels” (Forshaw, B. 2012. p.25). Snatch and Lock, Stock… exemplify Forshaw’s point on how the working class found illegitimate means of making money because their opportunities are limited. Most films wanted to appeal to a middle-class audience and therefore companies would advance past their working class background, with a few exceptions, to do this. Ritchie used his experience and insight of working-class, British life in his films. With the “convergence of issues with work, race, empire, and sexual orientation, in the latter – unthinkable when Hollywood made films for a mass audience” (Williams, A, E. 1991). Hollywood often created films for a mainstream audience, which did not address real issues because it would not conform to the idealistic lifestyle they often possessed. Ritchie made these kinds of films without having a pre-conceived mass audience. Around this time, the ‘Mob Drama’ was popular in American cinema, featuring films such as Goodfellas (Scorsese, M. 1990) and The Godfather: Part III (Coppola, F, F. 1990). Although strong male leads and gang culture are apparent in both films from Hollywood and Britain, the city life in America is not the same as British life. Because of this, the British gangster film is grittier and less flamboyant compared to Hollywood gangster films.

In conclusion, critic Paul Dave’s ideas on Guy Ritchie’s films are relevant and do adhere to the themes mentioned. The vision of London, and Britain as a whole in these films is excremental and realistic. Likewise, the unreconstructed working-class masculinity is nostalgic and does return back to survival and male competition of Laddishness. This type of gangster film was arguably one of the most consequential since the New Wave of the 1960s. Lock, Stock… was one of the first films that returned back to the New Lad culture, closely followed by Snatch after the large success Ritchie had with the first film. Although the points Dave makes are evident in Ritchie’s films, there are some characters that do not present a full-unreconstructed form of masculinity. Primarily, Snatch; Lock, Stock… and many other Gangster ‘New Lad’ Crime films of the 1990s to the early 2000s did feature the mirroring of a more true vision of the city, working class masculinity, and nostalgia.

References

Aleksandrowicz, A. (2016). The Cinematography of Roger Corman: Exploitation Filmmaker or Auteur? Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Coffey, R. J. (2011). Brad Pitt and the Pikey Culture: a Look at the Shelta Language. Knoji.

Coppola, F, F. (Director). (1990). The Godfather: Part III. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Corliss, R. Ressner, J. (1999). Beyond Pulp Affliction. Time, 153 (8), 1. doi: 3.1.1999. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.salford.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=150ea1f3-a0b2-4be8-86b1-742d9849a528%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNoaWIsY29va2llLGlwLHVybCx1aWQ%3d#AN=1558044&db=aph

Curtis, R. (Director). (2003). Love Actually. UK/USA: Universal Pictures.

Dave, P. (2006). Visions of England: Class and Culture in Contemporary Cinema. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Deakin, P. (2012). Masculine Identity in Crisis in Hollywood’s Fin De Millennium Cinema. (PhD Thesis), The University of Manchester, Manchester. Retrieved from https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:172532&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF

Forshaw, B. (2012). British Crime Film: Subverting the Social Order. Basingstoke: MacMillan Publishers.

Murphy, R. (2000). British Cinema of the 90s. UK: British Film Institute.

Murphy, R. (2009). The British Cinema Book. UK: British Film Institute.

Murphy, R, Chibnall, S. (1999). British Crime Cinema. NY: Routledge.

Ritchie, G. (Director). (1998). Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. UK: Summit Entertainment.

Ritchie, G. (Director). (2000). Snatch. UK: Columbia Pictures Corporation.

Ritchie, G. (Director). (2008). Rocknrolla. UK/USA: Warner Bros Entertainment.

Scorsese, M. (Director). (1990). Goodfellas. USA: Warner Bros.

Williams, A, E. (1991). Beyond Anthropology: Society and the Other. The American Historical Review, 96 (4), 1156-1157. doi: 1.10.1991. https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/96/4/1156/65027?redirectedFrom=PDF