For those not familiar with the immensely amusing and subversive BBC2 television series "The League of Gentlemen" I shall briefly clarify the situation.
This film is derived from the aforementioned BBC series, which was based on a BBC radio production, which in turn was spawned by a group of traveling actors/writers, obviously known as "The League...". This means that the material had been pretty thoroughly tried and tested by the time it reached the small screen. That material, as far as the 18 episode (split across 3 series) sit-com is concerned consisted of a plethora of dysfunctional characters, and a certain amount of narrative running through each series to hold everything together. The third series contained a much stronger narrative, but the first two were much more like sketch shows. Due to the fact that only three actors were playing the majority of the parts only certain combinations of character-situation acts were played out. The characters themselves were diverse, and what they sometimes lacked in depth was more than compensated for with humour and wit. The material itself was often referential and much fun could be had from trying to spot the references, these were also often self-referential.
So we move, as so often the way, from the small-screen to the big-screen, and in fact the Vue Cinema in Cambridge. In total there were 10 people in the auditorium, so we are not expecting a massive impact on box office sales from this. However, the question is, is the film a cult classic?
This is director Steve Bendelack's first feature film. In case you've not heard of him he has been directing for television for many years including "Spiting Image/s" to - incorrectly - name one of the most famous shows on which he's worked. At the start of the film one immediately sees that it is not going to be a lavish Hollywood epic with millions spent on expensive CG effects. However, as the target audience is presumably the people who know their previous efforts we are not so concerned about this. This is not to say that there is nothing notable visually from the film, far from it, fans of the TV series will point to its often striking use of visuals, and here there is plenty to intrigue the viewer. It is not a "Jurassic Park", or a "Lord of the Rings", but the problem with the film now appears. Yes, it is a movie, and it is one of these grey area films, which are not simply shot but aspire to something more due to certain plot requirements, it does contain CG effects and hence it competes in the same arena as bigger budget films. Personally I would have preferred a story that did not require these trappings as anything that uses computer graphics can potentially date very badly if not done perfectly.
Having looked at the overall impression of the movie as far as the eyes see it, what about the rest of the film? The acting is very good, as we'd expect, and the characters develop beyond what we've seen on the television. The story? Well this is going to be the issue that most people possibly find the most fault with. It's not that it's a bad story, but it's not that great either. I think to make the jump to a full feature the "League" have realised that they cannot stick to their usual format. They reasonably extend their characters' reach beyond "Royston Vasey", their televisual home, in which they have been trapped. The basic plot is:
"The characters from the League of Gentlemen figure out that their lives are jeopardised by the writers ceasing the progression of their stories, and so venture into the real world to try to save themselves."
To complicate matters further an extra subplot is brought in to bear, and set in the 17th century, this is called "The Kings Evil" and seems like filler to pad out the rest of the film. This storyline would have been okay if there had been more material to fill out the movie beyond its 90 minute run time. As it is it seems that they've said, right this is what we've got, a beginning, middle, and end, that's it! That's it! It is not all bad though, there are enough jokes to keep you laughing for most of it, as well as some typically dark, and surreal moments.
My main theory about this film is that the key actors, Reece Shearsmith, Steve Pemberton, and Mark Gatis, have decided that they needed to be seen without disguise as a way of forwarding their career. This too is fine (if we assume my theory is true!), they are very good actors and the parts they play are so well acted and disguised it can take a while for the uninitiated to figure out there are only three different people playing the roles. Incidentally the shy Jeremy Dyson, who appears to a lesser extent in other rolse, is played by Michael Sheen.
To answer the first question however, I do not think this will become a cult classic, it is a cult film, but not a classic. The League's proceeding work is definitely classic! I suspect this is also a way of putting those last nails in the coffin for this material. A shame, but not the end of the world!
*** (out of 5)
Film Reviews: June 2005 Archives
After a long break between film reviews, due to a bout of watching some more commercial eye candy, I returned to my usual slightly eclectic film viewing material that is worth reporting here.
Directed by Paolo Sorrentino this Italian film is on initial viewing a tense but slow moving drama, but as you will find if you watch it it develops into a faster paced affair, but with a twist. For Sorrentino's second major feature it is a brave style of movie to release.
Set almost entirely in a hotel in a nameless Swiss-Italian town near Lake Lugano we are introduced to the key players in the story. Titta di Girolamo (portrayed by Paulo Servillo) seems to have been living a quiet life in a hotel a comfortable hotel, separated from his family who still reside in Italy. He sits and watches the world around him, and as we watch him pondering the comings and goings of the hotel guests we wonder why he is there, and what else there is to know about him. Olivia Magnani plays Sofia, the regular bar assistant at the hotel who has watched Titta for many months and is seemingly facinated by this wrapped up and lonely middle-aged man.
I won't divulge any more about the plot of this film now. Despite it's apparently slow moving manner at the beginning we rapidly learn more about Titto, and eventually Sofia. Titto's narration underlies the still moments of the film.
The chess board on a coffee table, set with pieces for the start of a game counterpoints the tension of a battle about to commence. The film progresses with surprising changes of plot and action pace. The two rates effectively complimenting each other, faster scenes allowing the break from the tension, and slower scenes adding weight to the action and bringing further tension into the mood. The soundtrack, and in fact the sound in general, is essential to the feel of the picture, and I did enjoy some of the electronica which featured in the- The Boards of Canada were one group of artists that I picked out from the soundtrack.
A note should also be made of the cinematography, which so often in films of this type is just on the edge of pretentiousness. Some of the shots are slightly over the top (literally), but others are beautiful and add gravitas to the overall pace.
Overall an interesting work with some very nice touches, and a certain amount of ambiguity for added thought.
**** (out of 5)
