This just opened at the Varsity last Friday. It was a smash hit in England, where it was made, and a big hit at Sundance. It's been getting mixed reviews here in the States. As far as I'm concerned, it's going to be the number one must-see film around, especially for those of us who hope to improve our craft as writers when we watch a movie.
Despite the director's denials, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels has an obvious strong ressemblance to Pulp Fiction. Some people are also seeing a bit of Trainspotting thrown in. True at least to the extent that there are lots of low-lifes speaking with lower class British (as opposed to the Scottish in Trainspotting) accents.
It's a well crafted movie, although with no attempt to be art. The story is as well plotted as Pulp Fiction (although more confusing) and the dialogue is extremely good. The dialogue is one of the main reasons to see the movie. In particular, don't come in late and miss the first scene. We literary types make a big deal of T.S. Eliot having thrown in a little lower class English speech in ``The Wasteland,'' but what he has is mediocre in comparison to the dialogue here. (Or for that matter, in comparison to Elmore Leonard; I firmly believe you can't learn the craft of writing well if you ignore genre fiction.)
The art direction is classic B-movie stuff, extremely well done. The editing and camera work are as good as the best of Scorsese's stuff, at least as far as I can judge. It compares well, in particular, to The Color of Money. There's something for us as writers to learn from movies like this which are visually extremely interesting. It's something I'm trying to work on in my fiction (and having a very hard time) --- making my stories visually interesting. Putting the action and interactions in interesting settings. Flaubert did it. Elmore Leonard does it. So many poets and fiction writers don't.
The mixed reviews it's got have to do with the complaint that it's all style and no substance, which is true. So it's a question of what you look for in a work of art. If you read James Joyce looking for a gripping good yarn, you'll be disappointed. If you read Dickens (or see this movie) looking for deep characterization, you won't be happy. In fact, this movie is in its way quite Dickensian in the sense that all the characters are quite flat characters, but extremely colorful. (Once again, I can make reference as well to Elmore Leonard.) (Note: See E.M. Forster, The Craft of the Novel for the concept of flat characters. According to Forster, the distinguishing characteristic of a flat character is that he always acts in a predictable way; he never surprises us. Forster points out that almost all Dickens characters are flat.)
I figure that as a writer, anything that's well crafted is something I can learn from.
Maybe more on Adrienne Rich later. Or maybe not. So far, I'm pretty bored with most of her poetry except ``Aunt Jennifer's Tigers'' and ``North American Time.''
--Lee
April 7, 1999